Public attestation data feed JSON records ($0.0001 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | Target attestation JSON filename (e.g. test.json) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Attestation JSON payload | |
| status | Yes | Attestation status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / filename / descriptionAdded value: +"Target attestation JSON filename (e.g. test.json)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Attestation JSON payload",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Attestation status",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context – a cost of $0.0001 USDC per call – which annotations do not convey, though payment/auth mechanics remain unstated.
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?
A single front-loaded line with no filler, and the cost term is placed where it is immediately visible. It is arguably too terse, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 only one required parameter, an output schema already present, and annotations covering mutation semantics, there is little an agent needs beyond what is provided. The main residual gap is not knowing how to choose this tool over the sibling "data_feeds."
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 100% and the single filename parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a resource ("public attestation data feed JSON records") but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether it fetches, lists, or streams the records. It also fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling "data_feeds," leaving an agent to guess which one to pick.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. With a sibling literally named "data_feeds" plus many *_oracle tools in the set, the absence of routing context is a real selection hazard.
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.