golden_thread_statusGet the status of ~Alter's agent registration program (the Golden Thread). Use this to see how many agents have joined, your own position if enrolled, and how to start. Agents join by completing three registration steps (Knots). Your position determines which Strand milestones you reach. Free L0 to view; authentication needed to participate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about authentication requirements ('authentication needed to participate') and program mechanics (three registration steps, Strand milestones), which go beyond the annotations' safety profile.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the main purpose, second gives use cases, third provides program context and access constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no fluff.
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?
The description covers what the tool does, what information it returns (count, position, how to start), and access conditions. Given there is no output schema, it adequately describes the expected content, though it could clarify the exact response format (e.g., whether counts are numeric or include details).
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, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds context about what status information is available (count, position, how to start) without needing parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-param tool.
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 it gets the status of a specific program (Golden Thread) using the verb 'Get' and specifies the exact information returned (how many agents joined, user's position, how to start). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the program and its unique focus.
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 description provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to see how many agents have joined, your own position if enrolled, and how to start.' It also notes access conditions (free L0 view, authentication needed to participate). However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: alter_verify and alter_resolve_handle both check if a handle exists, and hello_agent and get_started both serve as introductions. However, descriptions clarify the distinctive features (canonical form vs simple existence; server info vs overview), so most pairs are distinguishable.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use the alter_ prefix (alter_login_status, alter_whoami), while others use bare verb_noun forms (describe_traits, get_network_stats). Verbs vary across describe, get, hello, list, recommend, and register, making the set feel disjointed and unpredictable.
With 14 tools, the count is within the ideal range for an identity infrastructure server. There are a few redundant tools (hello_agent vs get_started, verify vs resolve), but overall the surface is reasonably scoped without being overwhelming.
The server covers registration, existence checks, and reference data, but lacks any tool for querying identity fields (despite describe_competencies and describe_traits hinting at query_field). There are also no update or delete operations for identities or presence, leaving significant gaps for common workflows.