Read a baton's content + metadata. FREE (reads draw down the prepaid egress budget, no per-call charge). Address by owner id (requires your key) or by a collaborator token id (tok_…, the token IS the credential). Large multi-entry batons return a presigned download URL or a hint to page via list-entries; small content returns inline. Example: read_baton {id:"bat_"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Baton id, or a collaborator token id (tok_…). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free usage, two addressing modes, and handling of large vs. small content (presigned URL or inline). Missing error cases, but core behavior is well-covered.
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?
The description is relatively long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically. A minor reduction in redundancy could improve it, but it remains efficient.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (inline vs. presigned URL) and addressing options. Context about siblings is implicitly clear given the tool's distinct purpose.
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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'id' can be a baton id or a collaborator token (tok_…), and that the token itself serves as the credential. This goes beyond the schema's description.
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 clearly states 'Read a baton's content + metadata.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('baton'), and distinguishes from siblings like create_baton and append_to_baton by focusing on reading.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each addressing method (owner id requires your key, collaborator token is the credential). It also explains billing ('FREE') and gives a concrete example.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource, such as baton operations, agent messaging, contracts, and account management. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear which tool to use for each task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., append_to_baton, create_baton, message_agent). The verbs are descriptive and uniform, aiding predictability.
With 14 tools, the server covers its domain (agent coordination, batons, contracts, tool discovery) without being overbearing. The count is well-scoped for a platform offering a variety of operations.
The tool set covers core operations like creating, reading, and appending to batons, as well as messaging and contracts. However, it lacks list or delete operations for batons and contracts, which are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle.