PHION Trust

signed_result_comparator

Compare agent results and sign agreement or conflict; 0.003 USDC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "results": [
+      {
+        "provider": "a",
+        "value": 42
+      },
+      {
+        "provider": "b",
+        "value": 42
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+]

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool produces a signed agreement/conflict output and charges 0.003 USDC, which is real behavioral context. However it omits what signing entails, whether results are persisted, and any auth or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the operation and the cost front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the cost clause is appended rather than integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, and the input is well covered by the schema. Still, for a signing/mutation-style tool with no annotations, the description leaves the signing semantics and confidence/threshold behavior unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the example fully illustrates the 'results' array of value/provider objects. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination: 'Compare agent results and sign agreement or conflict.' An agent understands the operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent verification/preflight siblings like tool_result_schema_validator or verify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over any sibling. The only additional detail is pricing, which is not usage routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PHION Trust tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?