Resolve Hedera account ID or EVM address to on-chain profile: age, tokens, tx history. 0.2 HBAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaIntel API key | |
| account_id | Yes | Hedera account ID (e.g. 0.0.123456) or EVM address (e.g. 0x1234...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important behavioral detail that this operation costs 0.2 HBAR. It also discloses the output fields, adding value beyond annotations.
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 front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost. Every word contributes meaning.
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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, input, return fields, and cost. It lacks detail on failure modes or pagination, but these are less critical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly described (account_id supports Hedera ID or EVM address, api_key). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already explains, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly identifies the resource (Hedera account ID or EVM address) and the output (on-chain profile with age, tokens, tx history). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on profile resolution rather than sanctions checks or general account info.
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 when to use the tool: when you need a comprehensive on-chain profile for an account. It provides clear context but does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
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.