Get basic status of your persistent workspace (total size, file count, last modified). Very useful before deciding to clean up. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful context beyond that: the workspace is 'persistent', the status includes specific metrics, and the tool is explicitly 'Free'. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without needing to inspect external documentation.
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 concise—two sentences and 18 words—yet packs in the primary outputs, a use case, and a cost signal. There is no filler or repetition.
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 status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (size, file count, last modified), when to use it (before cleanup), and that it is free. No critical behavioral or contextual details are missing.
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?
The sole parameter agent_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Your agent identifier'. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage nuances beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 tool's function: 'Get basic status of your persistent workspace' with specific outputs (total size, file count, last modified). This distinguishes it from siblings like workspace_list or workspace_delete by focusing on status rather than listing or mutating.
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 for when to use the tool: 'Very useful before deciding to clean up.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest level of guidance found in examples like get_calls.
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.
