Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vet402

vet402

by kzmttkc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_payee_trust

Decides whether your agent should pay a wallet by returning ALLOW_PAY or REFUSE with a safe_to_pay boolean, so payments proceed only after a trust check.

Instructions

Buyer-side check before paying a wallet.

Read these two fields and nothing else to decide:

  • decision: ALLOW_PAY | REFUSE

  • safe_to_pay: boolean (always equals decision === ALLOW_PAY)

Pay only on ALLOW_PAY. REFUSE already accounts for a degraded read, a partial measurement, a stale score, and a non-ALLOW recommendation; refuse_reasons names which. An error result is also REFUSE with safe_to_pay false — no answer is not an ALLOW.

measurement carries the full score body (score, dataDepth, signals) for explanation and logging. It is evidence, not the decision.

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": {
      "payee": "<payee>"
    },
    "name": "check_payee_trust"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payeeYesPayee wallet address (0x...) the agent is about to pay

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains that REFUSE subsumes degraded reads, partial measurements, and stale scores, that errors also resolve to REFUSE with safe_to_pay false, and that no answer is never an ALLOW. This is precisely the fail-closed behavior an agent needs to avoid misreading an incomplete result as approval.

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 decision rule is front-loaded and the field-by-field breakdown is easy to scan. There is mild redundancy, since 'Pay only on ALLOW_PAY' repeats what 'safe_to_pay always equals decision === ALLOW_PAY' already implies, and the measurement paragraph is slightly prosey, but nothing is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the entire return contract: the decision enum, the boolean alias, the fail-closed error case, and where to find the evidence body. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret every outcome.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already defines it as the 0x... payee address the agent is about to pay. The description only restates that framing ('paying a wallet') without adding format, validation, or sourcing guidance, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('check' a payee's trust) plus the scope ('buyer-side', 'before paying a wallet'), which is enough to distinguish it from a general wallet-trust check. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from siblings like check_wallet_trust or pay_if_trusted.

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 gives clear usage context ('Buyer-side check before paying a wallet') and an imperative rule ('Pay only on ALLOW_PAY'), so the agent knows the decision gate this tool feeds. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to the alternative trust-check tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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