DERIVATION TRUTH: raw upstream payloads, SHA-256-pinned, with the exact collector code hash for each fetch. Replay any published value: fetch the verify_url yourself, run the pinned code, compare. Answers 'a hash proves a footprint, not the derivation' — divergence from origin is mechanically detectable. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Optional: filter to one symbol (e.g. AKT). Omit for the coverage list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: data is SHA-256-pinned, each fetch includes a collector code hash and verify_url, and it is free. However, it omits read-only confirmation, response shape, pagination/volume expectations, and any auth or rate-limit notes.
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 short, but the all-caps branding and aphoristic phrasing reduce clarity. The actionable details—pinned payloads, code hash, verify_url, free—are present, yet buried under philosophical framing rather than front-loaded as a direct tool description.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, this is a low-complexity case. The description names the core output concepts and a replay procedure, but leaves the response structure and the exact meaning or format of the 'coverage list' implicit.
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 schema already documents the sole parameter, symbol, with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or the coverage list, but given the schema coverage that is not a significant gap.
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 identifies a distinct resource—raw upstream payloads with SHA-256 pins and collector code hashes—but never states the operation in a plain main clause such as 'returns' or 'lists'. It hints at divergence verification but does not clearly differentiate this from siblings like verify_footprint or get_zk_provenance.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. 'Replay any published value' is an imperative for the caller, and the 'answers...' line suggests a use case, but an agent is not told when to choose this over verify_footprint or get_zk_provenance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.