KYC status of a Hedera account for one or more tokens. 0.5 HBAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaIntel API key | |
| token_id | No | Optional token ID to check KYC status for a specific token | |
| account_id | Yes | Hedera account ID (e.g. 0.0.123456) or EVM address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the important behavioral detail of a 0.5 HBAR cost and the flexibility of checking one or more tokens. It does not mention potential return format or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, the additional cost disclosure is valuable.
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 two short sentences with no filler; every word contributes either purpose or cost. It is efficiently front-loaded.
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 paid read tool with no output schema, the description lacks return-value expectations (e.g., what a KYC status result looks like) and how the 0.5 HBAR fee is charged or from which account. It also does not state behavior when token_id is omitted (all tokens vs. generic status), leaving meaningful gaps.
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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters described), so the description need not repeat parameter details. It adds the clarifying phrase 'one or more tokens' which aligns with token_id being optional, but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond that.
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 states 'KYC status of a Hedera account for one or more tokens' with title 'Verify KYC Status', clearly indicating a read-only check. It specifies the resource (Hedera account) and scope (one or more tokens), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling identity_check_sanctions or identity_resolve.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like identity_check_sanctions or identity_resolve. The context is implied by the KYC naming, but there are no explicit use-case conditions or 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.