Check Fixatum registration status for a Hedera account. Returns DID if registered, live score, and whether provenance is actively building. Free. Use before fixatum_register to check if already registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaToolbox API key (Hedera account ID). | |
| hedera_account_id | Yes | Hedera account ID to check (e.g. 0.0.123456). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only safe behavior (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable context: the tool is free, returns specific fields (DID, live score, provenance building status), and implies special behavior if not registered. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The word 'Free.' is slightly redundant but does not detract. No fluff or unnecessary detail.
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?
Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the main return fields (DID, live score, provenance status). It also gives usage context and pricing. It does not specify the response when the account is not registered, but the simple nature of the tool (2 params, read-only) makes this a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions (api_key, hedera_account_id), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond aligning them with the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Check Fixatum registration status for a Hedera account.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (Fixatum registration) and target (Hedera account). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fixatum_register by indicating this is the pre-check tool.
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 explicitly advises 'Use before fixatum_register to check if already registered,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also lists the returned data (DID, live score, provenance status) which helps the agent decide if this tool fits. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the primary use case is well covered.
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.