Claim-by-challenge title proof (hash comparisons only; posture C register-only).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"asset_id": "<asset_id>"
},
"name": "prove_title"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proofs | No | ||
| asset_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It vaguely signals a read/verification profile via 'hash comparisons only' and 'register-only', but never states side effects, required permissions, whether anything is mutated or persisted, or what failure looks like. 'Posture C' is undefined.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally good, but the compression comes at the cost of comprehensibility rather than being genuinely information-dense.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, a nested-object parameter with 0% documentation, and a two-parameter contract reduced to a jargon fragment. An agent has almost nothing to call this correctly or interpret the result.
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 0% and one parameter is an opaque nested object ('proofs'), yet the description only obliquely hints at its contents via 'hash comparisons'. asset_id is never mentioned. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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 phrase 'Claim-by-challenge title proof' names a resource (title) and an action (prove), and adds two scope qualifiers ('hash comparisons only', 'register-only'). However, the qualifiers are dense internal jargon ('posture C register-only') that an agent cannot decode, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like check_before_create or register_list.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from the sibling tools (check_before_create, register_list, sweep). The agent must guess the intended workflow from the name alone.
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.