Platform wallet, live pricing for all 23 tools in HBAR/USD, and your balance. FREE. Call first to onboard: send HBAR to platform wallet, your Hedera account ID becomes your API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional. Your Hedera account ID (e.g. 0.0.456789) or API key. If provided, your current balance is returned. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is FREE, requires onboarding by sending HBAR to a platform wallet, and explains how the Hedera account ID becomes an API key. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single sentence that packs multiple facts (wallet, pricing, balance, free, onboarding) without rambling. It is front-loaded with purpose and does not waste words, though the sentence is slightly dense.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to get started, and the meaning of the parameter. It lacks explicit return format details, but this is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema already fully documents the optional api_key parameter with type, example, and effect (returns balance). Description reiterates the onboarding/key relationship but adds no syntax or format details beyond schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 identifies the tool as providing platform wallet info, live pricing for all 23 tools, and user balance. It has a specific verb (though implicit) and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like token_price, so it slightly lacks differentiation.
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 includes an onboarding instruction ('Call first to onboard') and a hint about the api_key role, which implies usage context. However, it does not clearly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like token_price or balance-specific tools, and offers no 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., contract read vs. contract call vs. contract analyze; hcs monitor vs. hcs query vs. hcs understand). Even within closely related groups, descriptions clearly differentiate the specific purpose, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a domain_action pattern (e.g., contract_analyze, token_monitor, hcs_verify_record), but some are verb_noun (get_terms, confirm_terms) and a few are noun_noun (account_info, token_price, fixatum_score). While not perfectly uniform, the prefixes make the intended domain clear and the overall structure is readable.
With 25 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical MCP scope. While each tool serves a specific niche across multiple Hedera domains (contracts, HCS, tokens, identity, governance, Fixatum), the sheer number could increase selection complexity, but it remains within the borderline range rather than being excessive.
The server covers a broad range of read/analyze operations across major Hedera areas, plus essential write/verification capabilities (hcs_write_record, hcs_verify_record) and an onboarding flow (get_terms, confirm_terms). Minor gaps exist, such as no token transfer history or unregister/update for Fixatum, but the core analytical purpose is well covered.