Skip to main content
Glama
AgenticFinanceGraph

Agentic Finance Graph MCP Server

by AgenticFinanceGraph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

The Agent Pass: eight checks on an agent at one moment (free, shadow)

agent_pass
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an agent registration currently holds under agent.pass.v2: get pass/fail, failed or unavailable checks, evaluation time, three-hour expiry, and issuer public key.

Instructions

What the ledger measured about one registration at its last evaluation under agent.pass.v2, valid three hours: published level L7+, no open harm-kind incident, a counted payment in the last 30 days, its newest payment in character, no issuer freeze on a bound wallet, no unlimited approval to a plain key, no harm-kind incident in 90 days, and a month without a payment out of character. Answers holds or not, which checks failed, which could not be taken (listed, never written as 0), when it was checked and when it expires, with the issuer's public key. In shadow mode nothing is signed yet. A Pass says what was checked and when; it never says safe, verified or trusted, and says nothing about the next three hours.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYesAgent token id, act_8453_N, slug or bound wallet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: shadow mode means 'nothing is signed yet', the result is valid only three hours, unchecked checks are 'listed, never written as 0', and it explicitly disclaims safety/verification/trust and any forward-looking guarantee. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the output honestly.

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?

The purpose and the eight checks are front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the non-claim caveats. The check list is a dense run-on but every clause is load-bearing; a little pruning could improve readability without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract: holds or not, which checks failed, which could not be taken, the checked-at and expiry timestamps, and the issuer public key. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or call the tool is missing.

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 schema already documents the single parameter with accepted forms (token id, act_8453_N, slug, bound wallet). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema carries the burden.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the ledger's measurement of one registration under agent.pass.v2) and enumerates exactly the eight checks it reports, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It is distinguishable from generic siblings by scope, though it never names an alternative (e.g. agent_statement, gate_check) to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The 'valid three hours' and shadow-mode notes imply a freshness/read-only context, but the agent must infer when a Pass lookup is the right call versus pay_check, gate_check, or agent_statement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools