Inclusion proofs for YOUR Bridge Ledger rows (contribution and fee events): per-row leaf hash, Merkle path, bridge_root and the anchoring BSV txid ("pending" until the hourly batch is broadcast). No arguments: scoped to your credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bridge_proofArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"bridge_proofDictOutput"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "bridge_proofDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the exact payload fields and the temporal behavior that the txid reads "pending" until the hourly batch broadcast. It does not discuss rate limits or empty-result behavior, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource before the detail, with the scope note appended. The parentheticals are dense but each carries information (event types, pending semantics); nothing is redundant.
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 zero-argument read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the credential scoping and the "pending" anchoring state. Return values are explained beyond what is strictly needed, leaving little an agent would still need to ask.
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 earns that baseline by explaining why there are none — the call is implicitly scoped to the caller's credential — so an agent understands no filters can be supplied.
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?
States a specific resource (Bridge Ledger rows, contribution and fee events) and enumerates the returned artifacts (leaf hash, Merkle path, bridge_root, BSV txid). It implicitly separates itself from balance_proof by scoping to ledger-row inclusion proofs, though it never explicitly contrasts with verify_proof or ledger_verify.
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?
"No arguments: scoped to your credential" implies the usage context (your own rows only), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to sibling tools such as verify_proof for verification use cases. Usage is inferable but not stated.
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.