Read the declared identity of a watched agent (name, model provider, how often it runs, role, purpose, operator) and whether its public passport page is published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Watched agent address (0x…40 hex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read and discloses one interesting state ('whether its public passport page is published'), but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the address is not watched, or error/empty-result handling.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is dense but directly useful. Nothing is wasted, though the list could have been tightened slightly.
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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly what the agent needs to decide whether to call it. It stops short of covering failure/precondition behavior for addresses that are not watched.
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% for the single 'address' parameter, so the schema already documents the 0x…40 hex format. The description adds only the qualifier 'watched', which slightly narrows the valid input but no format or resolution detail 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?
States a specific verb ('Read') plus the exact resource ('declared identity of a watched agent') and enumerates the fields returned (name, model provider, run frequency, role, purpose, operator, passport publication status). This cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling set_agent_passport without needing to name it.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'watched agent' hints that the address must already be under watch (add_watch/list_watched), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the set_agent_passport counterpart, and no guidance on what happens for an unwatched address.
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.