get_ledger_headRead the latest height, hash, signed block, and pending-event count for observer pinning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | ||
| block | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| pending_events | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' action is consistent with those. The description adds the specific fields returned (height, hash, signed block, pending-event count) and the observer-pinning purpose, but does not add meaningful behavioral details beyond what annotations and the output schema likely convey.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes only relevant specifics. It is appropriately compact with no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and clear read-only annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the key returned items. It is slightly light on distinguishing this from read_ledger or get_root_history, but for its simplicity it is sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description avoids unnecessary parameter-related noise.
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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('the latest height, hash, signed block, and pending-event count'), making the tool's function evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like read_ledger or get_root_history, though the enumerated fields narrow the scope.
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 phrase 'for observer pinning' offers a contextual use case, implying that this tool is intended for retrieving a pinned ledger head. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like read_ledger or get_root_history.
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 corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.