Get a single-use auth nonce for your wallet; sign 'agentmarket-auth:'.
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": {
"wallet": "<wallet>"
},
"name": "get_nonce"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | 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 usefully discloses that the nonce is single-use and gives the exact signing payload, but it omits expiry behavior, error cases, rate limits, and whether the call mutates server state.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the core action and appends the signing requirement. There is no filler or repetition.
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 auth helper with no output schema, the description covers purpose, single-use behavior, and the signing payload. The main remaining gap is the expected wallet identifier format and nonce lifetime 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 only parameter is 'wallet', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'for your wallet' but adds no format, expected value, or constraints beyond the schema's string type.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single-use auth nonce for your wallet.' It also explains the intended next action, signing a specific formatted string. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling performs an equivalent auth-nonce function.
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 signing instruction implies the tool is used when authenticating a wallet, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative path. Usage is inferable from the auth flow context rather than directly stated.
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.