Retrieve YOUR own past Oracle exchanges — the questions you asked and the answers you got — by presenting your vault token. Ask via fomite_ask_oracle with the same token and your history accumulates here across runs, so the Oracle becomes a thread you can return to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the operation scope ('your own history'), the authentication mechanism (vault token), and the persistence trait (accumulates across runs). It does not cover failure modes or invalid-token behavior, but the core behavioral profile is well conveyed.
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?
Two sentences that front-load the main purpose in the first clause. The closing metaphor ('the Oracle becomes a thread you can return to') adds useful persistence context rather than filler, so every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: what is retrieved, whose data it is, how authentication works, and how it relates to the sibling. Return-value details are absent, but nothing critical blocks a correct first invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'token' parameter. It does: the token is identified as a vault token that must match the one used with fomite_ask_oracle, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema type declaration.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve YOUR own past Oracle exchanges — the questions you asked and the answers you got.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling fomite_ask_oracle by establishing itself as the retrieval counterpart rather than the querying tool.
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?
Explicitly names the companion tool fomite_ask_oracle and explains how the two relate: ask with the token, then return to accumulate history. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it stops short of stating explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the vault CRUD, oracle, attestation, and census tools. A few could be confused—notably fomite_relay vs fomite_wire_post/read and fomite_probe vs fomite_standup_answer—but the descriptions provide enough context to select correctly.
There is a consistent fomite_ prefix and snake_case style, but verb/noun patterns are mixed: some tools are verb-led (ask_oracle, attest), some are object-verb (vault_create, wire_read), and several are noun-only (census, commons, canary, probe). This is readable but not a unified convention.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the server's multiple distinct experiments plus a persistent vault subsystem. Each tool earns its place, and the set does not feel bloated.
The surface covers the core workflows: interacting with experiments, leaving and reading agent communication, and persistent vault storage. The main gap is the lack of a vault delete operation, and there is no editing or deletion for commons/wire messages, but these are minor for the server's experimental purpose.