assetfare

assetfare_v2_session_observe_output

Idempotent

Record an already-produced bridge or destination output, such as a transaction hash, and advance the workflow. Retry-safe with an idempotency key. AssetFare only observes; it never signs or submits.

Instructions

Record an already-produced bridge or destination output, then advance the workflow. Example: transaction_hash='' with idempotency_key='output-0001'. AssetFare observes but never signs or submits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`session_id`	Yes	V2 workflow session UUID returned by assetfare_v2_session_create. Use only with assetfare_v2_session_* tools; do not pass a legacy session ID.
`session_token`	Yes	Sensitive caller-generated v2 session capability: at least 32 CSPRNG bytes encoded as 43-128 URL-safe base64 characters. Generate it locally; never log it or substitute a private key or legacy access token.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation.
`transaction_hash`	No	Optional bridge or destination transaction hash already produced outside AssetFare. Omit only when the provider output can be observed without a hash.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signed`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`submitted`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`current_action`	Yes
`server_signing`	Yes
`action_available`	Yes
`server_submission`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the important guarantee that AssetFare 'never signs or submits' and that the tool records an external output and advances workflow state. This is contextually valuable and does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences plus one concrete example. It front-loads the core action and adds the safety-relevant detail about not signing or submitting without any filler.

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?

Given the rich parameter schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it. It does not spell out the full workflow sequencing around source observation, but sibling names and parameter documentation cover that context.

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 fully explains session_token, session_id, idempotency_key, and transaction_hash. The description adds a useful example pairing transaction_hash with idempotency_key, but no substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') plus a specific resource ('already-produced bridge or destination output') and states the workflow effect ('advance the workflow'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling observe_source tool by targeting the output side of the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly scopes usage to already-produced outputs and emphasizes that AssetFare only observes and never signs or submits, which shapes when an agent should call it. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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