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 full burden. It discloses the free nature, the response contents, the 404 behavior, and the privacy guarantee that mail existence is never leaked. This is strong transparency for a read-only lookup, though rate limits or auth requirements are not mentioned.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Free' and then the core function. Every clause adds value—return value, signature verification, 404 handling, privacy. No redundancy or fluff.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns, how to interpret the result (verify signature), error handling (404), and privacy behavior. The agent has all needed context to invoke correctly.
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 input schema already describes the only parameter (address) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the return value but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns the registered X25519 public key for an address, along with a wallet-signed registration statement. This is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes it from siblings 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?
Provides clear context: use this to look up a key before sealing/sending, and verify the signature. Also explains the 404 error meaning. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient.
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: send, read, ack, count, register_key, directory, nonce, capabilities, credit, checkpoint, and status cover different operations without overlap. Even similar-sounding tools like count and read are cleanly separated by scope (message count vs. message content).
All tool names follow a uniform pattern with the 'locker_' prefix and lowercase snake_case. While some postfixes are nouns (capabilities, directory, status) and others verbs (send, read, ack), the style is consistent and predictable, matching the server's domain.
11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging/storage server: each tool earns its place covering setup, messaging, payment, and account management without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface provides complete lifecycle coverage for the mailbox system: key registration, message sending/reading/acknowledging, directory lookup, nonce generation, payment via credit, persistent checkpoint storage, and status monitoring. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.