Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.daedalusdevelopmentgroup/ddg-agent-services-mcp

io.github.daedalusdevelopmentgroup/ddg-agent-services-mcp

Official
by daedalusdevelopmentgroup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ddg_tx_smoke_test

Exercise a one-cent DDG transaction smoke-test route using supplied payment headers to verify payment conformance.

Instructions

Exercise the one-cent DDG transaction smoke-test route with caller-supplied payment headers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ddg_tx_smoke_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_headersNo
agent_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'smoke test' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether a real charge occurs), permissions needed, or idempotency. The agent lacks critical safety information.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the core function. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action and context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having two parameters and an output schema (unseen), the description provides no information about return values, error cases, or prerequisites. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is too minimal to fully inform the agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'payment_headers' as 'caller-supplied' but does not explain format or role of 'agent_id'. Agent_id is left completely undocumented, and payment_headers lacks detail on required keys or structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool exercises a specific 'one-cent DDG transaction smoke-test route' with caller-supplied payment headers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg_submit_order (for actual orders) and ddg_quote_payment (for quotes), making the purpose very clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a test route not for production use, nor does it compare with sibling tools like ddg_submit_order. The description assumes implicit context.

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