Skip to main content
Glama

agent-transaction-control

by network.flint

Issue Signed Verification Record

issue_authorization_record

Use this tool before an AI agent initiates a payment, paid API call, checkout action, stablecoin transfer, x402 request, or delegated commercial transaction. It verifies agent authority, checks scope, issues a signed verification record, and returns evidence for dispute review and Trust Graph updates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceNoReplay-protection nonce. Generated automatically if omitted.
timestampNoISO timestamp. Generated automatically if omitted.
partner_idNoMerchant or platform identifier. Defaults to sandbox_public.
agent_claimNoAgent identity, principal hint, runtime hint, optional act_chain delegation lineage, optional spiffe_svid workload identity, optional tool_manifest capabilities, and related claims.
transactionYesIntended transaction or paid access request. Must include amount_display.
declared_scopeNoFinancial, temporal, and counterparty limits for delegated authority.
merchant_referenceNoMerchant order, invoice, or API request reference.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the multi-step process: verifying authority, checking scope, issuing a record, and returning evidence for dispute review and Trust Graph updates. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage context, and every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and nested objects, but no output schema. The description explains actions but omits the return structure (e.g., what the signed record contains), leaving a gap for a complex tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description references agent_claim and declared_scope in context but adds little specific meaning beyond the schema's already descriptive property descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool issues a signed verification record and lists specific use cases (payment, paid API call, checkout, etc.), differentiating it from siblings like verify_agent_authority by emphasizing issuance over mere verification.

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 clearly directs when to use the tool (before initiating commercial actions), providing strong context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references beyond the sibling list.

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

All agent-transaction-control toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: manifest creation, scope generation, passport lifecycle, authorization issuance/verification, reputation lookup, transaction scanning, and architecture validation. Overlapping terms like 'issue_agent_passport' and 'issue_authorization_record' are clearly differentiated by their objects and descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear verbs (create, generate, get, issue, lookup, run, update, validate, verify). Even where verbs are semantically close (issue vs generate), the pattern remains uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for an agent transaction control domain, covering identity, authorization, verification, trust, scanning, and compliance checks without redundancy. Each tool occupies a necessary niche in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong: passports can be created, read, and updated, authorizations can be scoped, issued, and verified, and reputation/manifests are accessible. Notable minor gaps include no explicit revocation or outcome-submission tool, but agents can still complete the primary transaction flow.

Resources