locker_statusFree. Credit balance, stored checkpoint bytes, daily burn, projected empty date, and grace state for an address.
| 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 full burden. It usefully adds that the tool is free and discloses the set of returned account metrics, which is relevant behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or other operational traits beyond the word 'status' and the listed values.
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 very compact and has no wasted words: 'Free' is front-loaded, and the metric list is short. It is slightly telegraphic and could be improved with a verb, but it remains efficient and easy to scan.
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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate: a caller knows the required address and the high-level fields returned. But there is no output schema, and the description does not explain units, value formats, or possible grace-state values, so an agent is left guessing at the exact response shape.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single `address` parameter, including its EVM format and mailbox-identity meaning. The description only repeats 'for an address' without adding new parameter-level semantics, which matches the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.
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 title and description clearly identify this as a storage-account status tool and enumerate the specific metrics returned: credit balance, stored checkpoint bytes, daily burn, projected empty date, and grace state. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' and it does not directly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as locker_credit or locker_checkpoint.
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 implies usage when a caller wants an aggregate storage-account status view, and the field list clarifies what that view contains. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.
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.