Registers a dACP agent with this MCP server instance, associating its Ethereum identities and roles. The signature proves control of each signerAddress. Server-local state — no configId/signerAddress context needed. Returns: registration confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| entities | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that registration is server-local and signature-based, and mentions a return value. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., overwriting existing registration) or side effects, but provides modest context beyond annotations.
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 focused sentences: first states purpose, second adds context and return info. No redundant or ambiguous phrasing. Front-loaded with key information.
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?
The description lacks explanation of prerequisites, failure modes, or integration with other tools. Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is moderately complete but misses important usage context for an agent.
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 0% (only signerAddress has a description). The description loosely refers to 'Ethereum identities and roles' without detailing parameters like name, description, entities, or nested fields. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 action ('Registers a dACP agent'), the resource ('with this MCP server instance'), and the associations ('Ethereum identities and roles'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings which focus on exchanges, disputes, offers, etc., as 'register' is a unique operation.
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 (independent registration before other operations) via 'Server-local state — no configId/signerAddress context needed.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use or any prerequisites.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap among multiple commit_to_* and sign_receive_* variants that could confuse an agent. The tool boundaries are clear for the core workflow, but the sheer number of similar operations slightly reduces clarity.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., commit_to_offer, create_seller). Some inconsistency exists with mixed verbs like 'store_', 'sign_', 'send_', but the pattern is largely predictable and readable.
With 63 tools, the server is heavy but covers a complex protocol (offer lifecycle, disputes, metadata, meta-transactions). The count is borderline; some tools (e.g., multiple signing helpers) could be consolidated, but the scope justifies the size.
The tool set covers the core protocol flows comprehensively: create, commit, redeem, dispute, resolve, void, and metadata storage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated 'get_offer_by_id' but filtering suffices), and meta-transaction support is extensive.
