whoamiYour handle, wallet, balance and usage. Free.
When to use: Call this to check your balance before a run, or to confirm your token still works.
Price: Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool is free and that it verifies the token works, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides modest additional detail.
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: return content, usage guidance, and price. Each sentence earns its place, with the most important information (what it returns) front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, usage scenarios, and cost. Nothing essential is missing—agents can determine when to call it and what they will receive, making it complete for its simplicity.
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 schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per guidelines, a zero-param tool earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits any parameter information since none exist, and the schema requires no further elaboration.
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 that the tool returns the user's handle, wallet, balance, and usage, and the title 'Who am I' reinforces the self-identification purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'capabilities' or 'history' by focusing on the caller's own identity and account state, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.
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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: checking balance before a run or confirming token validity. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable for the intended use cases.
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 targets a clearly distinct action: check evaluates a single URL, compare scores multiple URLs, resolve discovers services by description, history provides evidence, and watch tracks changes. Account tools (identity_create, credit_deposit, whoami) and capabilities/report are equally unambiguous. No two tools could plausibly be confused.
Names are readable and informative, but conventions are mixed: check, compare, report, resolve, and watch are single-word imperatives; capabilities, history, and whoami are nouns or phrases; and credit_deposit and identity_create reverse the usual verb_noun order. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the names remain fairly intuitive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a reputation/verification service: discovery, checking, comparison, history, watch, reporting, identity, credit, and account introspection. Each tool earns its place and the count fits squarely in the ideal range for a focused server.
The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, check, compare, track, report, and manage identity/credit. The only notable gaps are watch management (no list or unwatch tool) and account deletion/cleanup, but agents can work around these by simply stopping use. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for its stated purpose.