agent-verifier-mcp

check_budget

Verify a purchase is within budget before payment, returning a hold_id to settle the transaction later.

Instructions

Check if a purchase is within budget. Call BEFORE making a payment. Returns a hold_id to settle after.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "budget_id": "<budget_id>",
      "amount_cents": "<amount_cents>",
      "vendor": "<vendor>"
    },
    "name": "check_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vendor`	Yes	Who you are paying (e.g. "exa.ai")
`budget_id`	Yes	Budget ID from create_budget
`amount_cents`	Yes	Amount in cents (e.g. 700 for $7.00)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool checks budget and returns a hold_id, but does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error if over budget) or any side effects beyond the hold. Reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and workflow.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value (hold_id). It could improve by noting potential error responses, but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple check tool. Sibling tools are related but not explained in detail.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'check' and resource 'budget', and clearly distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like 'settle' and 'release' by stating it is a pre-payment verification that returns a hold_id.

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?

The description explicitly states when to call ('BEFORE making a payment') and what to do with the result ('Returns a hold_id to settle after'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies a workflow.

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

Deploy Server