What the record covers and, as importantly, what it knows it has not covered: the denominator of tokens seen on chain and not yet resolved to any wrapper.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "coverage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only gives a conceptual explanation. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, what output to expect, or any operational constraints.
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 brief and not verbose, but it lacks a clear action-oriented structure. The single sentence is dense with conceptual nuance yet fails to front-load what the tool actually does.
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, the description should clarify what invoking it returns or how it behaves. Instead, it only provides an abstract definition of 'coverage', which is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and call the tool.
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 description need not explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies here because there is no parameter semantics burden at all.
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 defines the concept of 'coverage' as what the record covers and what it has not covered, but it never states an action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieves', 'returns', 'calculates'). It is semantically informative but does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like lookup_token or wrapper_record.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.