Bind a proposed tool call to declared intent and execution policy; 0.002 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call | Yes | ||
| intent | Yes | ||
| policy | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "call": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "q": "public filings"
+ },
+ "cost_atomic": "1000",
+ "destination": "api.example",
+ "tool": "search"
+ },
+ "intent": {
+ "tools": [
+ "search"
+ ]
+ },
+ "policy": {
+ "allowed_destinations": [
+ "api.example"
+ ],
+ "allowed_tools": [
+ "search"
+ ],
+ "max_cost_atomic": "2000"
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers little beyond a 0.002 USDC price. It never says what happens on a policy mismatch (reject, error, flag), whether the call is actually executed or only checked, what the cost entry means, or whether the operation is side-effect free.
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 that states the resource before the billing note; nothing is padded. The price clause is extraneous to invocation but does not bury the core statement.
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?
This is a complex tool with three required nested objects, a 0% schema coverage rate, no annotations, and no siblings named. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the input contract and the pass/fail semantics almost entirely unexplained.
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 three parameters are undescribed nested objects, so the schema gives almost nothing. The description partially compensates by naming the three concepts — proposed tool call, declared intent, execution policy — that map one-to-one onto call/intent/policy, but it adds no structural or field-level detail.
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 names a specific resource (a proposed tool call) and two binding targets (declared intent, execution policy), which lets an agent roughly place it among its guard/preflight siblings. However, the verb 'bind' is vague — it does not state whether the tool validates, signs, or gates the call, nor what result a caller gets. The pricing suffix is unrelated to purpose and adds noise.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as preflight, inter_agent_policy_evaluator, or delegation_scope_guard, which appear closely related. An agent must guess where this fits in a call sequence.
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.