Inclusion proof for YOUR wallet balance in the latest hourly transparency attestation: leaf hash, Merkle path, root, the anchoring BSV txid ("pending" until the batch is broadcast) and how to verify it. No arguments: the wallet is the one your credential owns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"balance_proofArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"balance_proofDictOutput"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "balance_proofDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral details: the anchoring BSV txid may be 'pending' until batch broadcast, and it includes verification instructions, which go beyond structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key return values and usage note. No wasted words; every clause adds value.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, yet it helpfully lists them. Annotations cover safety, and the description adds credential context and pending-status behavior, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that no arguments are needed because the wallet is implicitly determined by the caller's credential, adding meaning beyond the empty schema.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Inclusion proof for YOUR wallet balance in the latest hourly transparency attestation'. It enumerates the returned fields (leaf hash, Merkle path, root, txid) and clarifies it's for the caller's own wallet, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_proof or transparency_latest that serve different roles.
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?
It provides clear context: it's for the caller's own wallet (credential-owned) and covers the latest hourly attestation. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., verify_proof for verification or transparency_latest for general attestation data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.