Amount-banded cosigner quorum rules for sends and swaps. Below-band amounts auto-execute; matching bands require N cosigner votes.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_cosigner_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the domain semantics of the data, which is more than a restatement of the name, but it never confirms this is a read-only operation, says nothing about permissions required to view quorum rules, and gives no sense of the returned structure.
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 resource and then the behavioral meaning of the bands. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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-parameter read with no output schema, the description should sketch what comes back: band boundaries, vote thresholds, and which operations are covered. It conveys the concept but leaves the returned shape and units undefined, so an agent knows the topic but not the payload.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties false), so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs and focuses on what the rules represent.
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 the specific resource: amount-banded cosigner quorum rules scoped to sends and swaps. The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than the description, and the sibling update_cosigner_rules is not explicitly distinguished, but the resource is described precisely enough to separate it from approval and listing tools.
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 explains what the rules mean (below-band auto-execute, matching bands need N votes), which implies this is a read of current configuration, but it never states when to call it or that update_cosigner_rules is the mutation counterpart. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
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.