locker_countFree. Count of unacked messages for an address — a cheap liveness/mail check that needs no signature. Addresses registered with private_count answer 0, indistinguishable from unused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM wallet address (0x…, the mailbox identity). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that the call is free, requires no signature, and that private_count-registered addresses return 0 and are indistinguishable from unused addresses. It does not describe the response shape, but this is minor for a count operation.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence conveys cost and purpose, the second adds authentication context, and the third covers an important edge case. No wasted words.
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 tool, the description covers cost, authentication, purpose, and a privacy-sensitive edge case. The only notable omission is explicit return-format detail, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.
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 schema already documents the address parameter with 100% coverage, including the EVM wallet address format. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the count is per-address, so the baseline 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 states the exact operation: count of unacked messages for an address, and frames it as a cheap liveness/mail check that needs no signature. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling locker tools like locker_read or locker_status without requiring schema inspection.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use this for a cheap liveness or mail check when no signature is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 distinct area: mailbox operations (ack/read/count/send), checkpoint storage, key registration/directory, and account/billing info. The only mild ambiguity is that locker_checkpoint bundles save/load/list/delete into one tool, and locker_send can target your own future self, which could blur the boundary with checkpoint storage.
All names share the locker_ prefix and consistent snake_case, which keeps the set cohesive. However, the second part mixes bare verbs (read, send, ack, count, invite) with nouns (capabilities, directory, nonce, status) and one true verb_noun pair (register_key), so the naming convention is not uniform.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool earns its place by covering a distinct capability: mailbox, checkpoint memory, key identity, billing, and onboarding. Nothing feels redundant or like padding.
The set covers the full message lifecycle (send/read/ack/count), checkpoint CRUD via locker_checkpoint, key registration/verification, and billing/status. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit key revocation/rotation tool or sent-message history, but core workflows are complete.