locker_directoryFree. Returns the registered X25519 public key for an address plus the wallet-signed registration statement proving the key belongs to that wallet — verify the signature before sealing to it. 404 means no key registered (existence of mail is never leaked).
| 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is free, describes the returned data, explains the 404 semantics, and even exposes the privacy property that mail existence is never leaked. It does not mention rate limits or other operational details, but the key behaviors are 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?
Three sentences deliver high-value information with no filler. The cost note, return payload, verification requirement, and 404 behavior are all packed in efficiently and 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?
With no output schema, the description explains the success return (X25519 public key and signed statement) and the key error case (404). It could specify the exact shape of the signed statement for verification, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the address parameter. The description reinforces that the address is the lookup key for a registered X25519 key, but adds little new parameter-level syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.
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 names a specific operation: retrieving a recipient's registered X25519 public key and the wallet-signed registration statement for an address. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like locker_register_key (registration) and locker_send (sending).
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 establishes the intended context: look up a recipient's encryption key before sealing, and verify the signature. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is concrete and actionable enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.