Deep HCS topic analysis: anomaly detection, trends, entity extraction, risk. 1.0 HBAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaIntel API key | |
| topic_id | No | Hedera topic ID. Defaults to the HederaIntel platform topic. | |
| analysis_type | Yes | Type of analysis to perform | |
| lookback_days | No | Days of history to analyze (default 7, max 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable cost information ('1.0 HBAR') and the scope of analysis beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them, giving good transparency for a read-only analysis tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists key analysis types. There is no unnecessary verbosity; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
The description effectively conveys the core purpose and analysis categories, but it lacks detail on expected outputs (no output schema exists) and does not provide guidance on selecting this tool versus closely related siblings. For a moderately complex tool with a parameter enum, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-specific details beyond echoing the analysis_type options, and it does not elaborate on topic_id or lookback_days, which are already documented in the schema.
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 indicates the tool performs deep HCS topic analysis and lists specific analysis types (anomaly detection, trends, entity extraction, risk). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'deep' analysis, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'analyze' and relies on the title for clarity.
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 implies usage scenarios by enumerating analysis types, suggesting when one might need deep analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hcs_query or hcs_monitor, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.