Inspect recent permitted and blocked transactions and payments in the local SQLite audit log, filtered by status and limited to recent records for payment review.
Inspect recent permitted and blocked transactions/payments in the local SQLite audit log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of recent records to return (1-100) | |
| status | No | Filter logs by status: ALLOWED, BLOCKED, or ALL | ALL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (local SQLite), that records cover both allowed and blocked outcomes, and that results are recent-only, but it never states read-only semantics, the retention/recency window, or whether results are paginated. That is meaningful but incomplete disclosure for an un-annotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause ('recent', 'permitted and blocked', 'local SQLite audit log') carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, zero-required inspection tool without an output schema, the description covers what is being read but not what a returned record looks like (fields, ordering, timestamps) or how the recency window is defined. Adequate to call the tool, but an agent cannot anticipate the response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both the limit range (1-100) and the status enum are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the notion that records are drawn from the 'recent' tail of the log, which lightly reinforces what limit means but adds no syntax or format detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('recent permitted and blocked transactions/payments in the local SQLite audit log'), and the local-audit-log framing clearly distinguishes it from the network/payment siblings x402_fetch and x402_safe_tx. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast against, but the resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the word 'Inspect' and 'audit log' suggest a read-only review of past decisions, and 'permitted and blocked' hints at the status filter. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over x402_get_budget or x402_safe_tx, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.