Agent Decoy Gateway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

follow_settlement_reference

Follows a synthetic settlement reference handle to trace linked records within a hard step limit. Use it to walk reference trails safely without unbounded lookups.

Instructions

Follow one synthetic reference handle; the trail has a hard step limit.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "follow_settlement_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`handle`	Yes
`message`	No
`terminal`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`steps_used`	Yes
`steps_remaining`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: a hard step limit bounds the traversal. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the limit is reached (truncation vs. error), or how deep the trail typically goes.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the step-limit caveat attached. Nothing is wasted, though the compression contributes to the ambiguity around what "follow" actually does.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a bounded graph traversal the description should clarify what the step limit means in practice and what a truncated result looks like — that gap keeps it at merely adequate.

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 coverage is 0% for the single handle parameter, so the description has to compensate. It adds that the handle is "synthetic" and that exactly "one" is accepted, which is modest but real meaning beyond the bare string type.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ("Follow") and a resource ("synthetic reference handle"), but "follow" is left undefined — it could mean resolve, traverse, or expand. It never contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_settlement_reference, so an agent must guess which of the two retrieval tools fits.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of lookup_settlement_reference, nor any precondition for choosing between the two. The only guidance is the implicit hint that "follow" implies traversal, which the agent must infer.

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

Deploy Server