List all stored memory keys under your authenticated Bearer key (agent_id is accepted but not currently used to partition storage — see memory_store's note). Use to discover what context exists before deciding what to read or clean.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Accepted but not currently used to partition storage — memory is namespaced by your Bearer key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds authentication context (Bearer key) and the quirk that agent_id is not used for partitioning, which is beyond annotations. Useful behavioral detail.
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 main action. The caveat about agent_id and the usage guidance are both concise and necessary.
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 simple read-only list operation, the description covers purpose, usage, and param behavior. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but with readOnlyHint and the nature of the operation, it's sufficiently complete.
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% with agent_id described as accepted but not used for partitioning. The description repeats this same info, adding no further semantic depth. Baseline 3 applies.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'stored memory keys' under the authenticated Bearer key. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_get and memory_delete by emphasizing it lists all keys for discovery.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to discover what context exists before deciding what to read or clean.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.
The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.
