delegated_spend_policyFail closed when delegated authority, per-call limit or remaining budget is insufficient.; 0.003 USDC. Deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / minPropertiesRemoved value: -1Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "action": {
+ "amount_atomic": 3000
+ },
+ "mandate": {
+ "active": true,
+ "max_per_transaction_atomic": 5000,
+ "remaining_atomic": 10000
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: fail-closed semantics, a 0.003 USDC cost, and deterministic, evidence-bounded, signed behavior. It could say more about the failure surface, but it materially improves behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the fail-closed condition. However, the '0.003 USDC' fragment and the semicolon-separated phrases are telegraphic and leave terms like 'evidence-bounded' unexplained, which keeps it from being fully polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return shape, and the description adds failure mode and cost. Still, it leaves ambiguity about whether this is a checker, a policy document, or an enforcement gate, and it does not help select it among many overlapping payment and guard siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description references delegated authority, per-call limits, and remaining budget, which aligns with the example payload, while the schema already provides complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific policy condition and failure behavior: it fails closed when delegated authority, per-call limit, or remaining budget is insufficient. That makes the tool's role as a delegated-spend policy check inferable. It does not distinguish this role from sibling guards such as agent_budget_guard or payment_preflight.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling to use instead. The fail-closed condition describes internal behavior rather than invocation context, leaving the agent to infer usage among many similar payment and guard tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.