Deterministic counterparty policy preflight using supplied reputation evidence and transaction limits; 0.003 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| reputation | No | ||
| transaction | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "policy": {
+ "maximum_amount": "5000",
+ "minimum_reputation_score": 60
+ },
+ "reputation": {
+ "assessment": {
+ "score": 82
+ }
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "wallet": "0x..."
+ },
+ "transaction": {
+ "amount": "1000"
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the evaluation is 'deterministic' (reproducible) and costs 0.003 USDC. However, it says nothing about error/deny behavior, required evidence completeness, or what a policy violation returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cost is appended compactly. Efficient, though the cost datum is slightly awkwardly tacked on after a semicolon.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with four undocumented nested objects at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about the input contracts and the decision semantics of a preflight.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all four parameters are opaque nested objects with no property documentation. The description alludes to 'reputation evidence and transaction limits', hinting at two of the four objects, but does not document policy/subject/reputation/transaction structure or their required fields.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (counterparty policy preflight) plus its inputs (reputation evidence, transaction limits), which is clearer than a bare 'preflight'. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like data_egress_preflight or secret_redaction_preflight by naming the subject domain, though the differentiation is by domain noun only.
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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this precedes agent_reputation_evidence or consumes its output, nor what a failing preflight implies.
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.