Generate a new Ed25519 keypair for ledger identity. Returns the private key exactly once — it is never stored server-side and cannot be recovered if lost. This is a SEPARATE keypair from whatever wallet you use to authorize x402 payments (payment auth and ledger identity are two independent signing domains — see payments.py).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the private key is returned exactly once, never stored server-side, and irretrievable. It also explains the separation of signing domains. While it lacks details on rate limits or authentication requirements, the critical behavioral traits are well-covered.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second adding crucial behavioral notes. Every word adds value—no fluff, and the key points are front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple generation purpose, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the unique characteristics of the keypair, and the security implications, leaving no significant gaps.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without needing parameter details, achieving the baseline expectation for a no-parameter 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 the tool generates a new Ed25519 keypair for ledger identity, with a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Ed25519 keypair'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing this is separate from payment auth (x402), using the phrase 'SEPARATE keypair' and referencing independent signing domains.
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 clear context on when to use the tool (to generate a keypair) and includes critical information that the private key is returned once and cannot be recovered. It also distinguishes from wallet-based payment authorization, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: account inquiries, financial reports, directive management, validation, key generation, and batch submission. No two tools overlap in functionality despite some being related reports.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., export_ledger, get_balance_sheet, list_accounts). The naming is predictable and clear throughout.
With 11 tools covering ledger management, reporting, validation, and key generation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool justifies its existence without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers essential operations for a Beancount ledger: submission of directives (single and batch), listing of accounts and directives, generation of key financial reports, balance queries, validation, and key registration. No obvious gaps are present.