Skip to main content
Glama
assetfare

assetfare

by assetfare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

assetfare_prepare_destination_action

Idempotent

Prepare the exact-cap permit and unsigned ERC-4337 destination settlement plan for a legacy v1 session after caller approval, advancing preparation state without signing or submitting.

Instructions

Prepare the exact-cap permit and unsigned ERC-4337 destination settlement plan for the current legacy v1 session. Use only when the legacy workflow reports the destination step and after caller approval; v2 sessions expose their current action through assetfare_v2_session_get. Makes a network request and advances preparation state, but never signs or submits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesLegacy v1 session UUID returned by assetfare_create_session. Use only with the unversioned legacy workflow; do not pass a v2 session ID.
access_tokenYesSensitive legacy v1 wallet-bound bearer token returned by assetfare_finish_wallet_auth. Use only with unversioned legacy session tools; never log or use it as a v2 session capability.
idempotency_keyYesCaller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation. Strict approval_v3 requests additionally enforce its ASCII key pattern.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Caller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation."New value: +"Caller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation. Strict approval_v3 requests additionally enforce its ASCII key pattern."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that calling this tool 'Makes a network request and advances preparation state, but never signs or submits.' This is valuable safety-relevant context for a settlement tool. It doesn't contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), though it could say more about the exact state changes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences pack the action, the exact trigger condition, the v2 alternative, and the network/state/signing boundary with zero fluff. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex state-advancing tool, the description covers when to call it, the alternative, the scope, and the safety boundary, while annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle idempotency and parameters. It does not explicitly describe the return value, which is a small gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not need to add param-level meaning; it correctly relies on the schema and provides no additional parameter semantics beyond it.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb-resource pair: 'Prepare the exact-cap permit and unsigned ERC-4337 destination settlement plan' for the legacy v1 session. It is explicitly scoped to the destination step and distinguishes from v2 by naming v2 sessions' current action exposure, so an agent can disambiguate among the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit condition: 'Use only when the legacy workflow reports the destination step and after caller approval.' It also names the alternative for v2 sessions (assetfare_v2_session_get), giving clear routing guidance and an exclusion.

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