mcp_transaction_gatewayBind an MCP tool call to transaction evidence without granting undeclared authority.; 0.004 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: +[
+ {
+ "source": {
+ "id": "mcp-call-1"
+ },
+ "transaction": {
+ "id": "tx-1"
+ }
+ }
+]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, so the description only needs to add context. It adds a per-call cost of 0.004 USDC and guarantees that behavior is deterministic, evidence-bounded, and signed, but it does not explain what the binding operation actually does operationally or what authorization prerequisites exist.
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 purpose before the price and behavioral traits. The punctuation around 'authority.; 0.004 USDC' is awkward, but the text is otherwise appropriately sized with little waste.
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?
Because there is an output schema and no input parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. However, for a transaction-gateway tool among many similar siblings, it remains incomplete on when to invoke it and what 'evidence' or 'binding' concretely means.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema cannot contain parameter semantics that the description would need to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter implications.
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 gives a specific verb and object: bind an MCP tool call to transaction evidence. It also states a key constraint, no undeclared authority, which is more informative than a tautological restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many sibling transaction/payment tools.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as a2a_transaction_bridge, transaction_assurance, or preflight. The transaction-related context is implied by the purpose, but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.
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.