The machine verification spec for the attestation service, how sealed claims are hashed, put on chain and verified independently
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that this is a spec (implying read-only/documentation) and describes the content, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, what the output format is, or any constraints. The description adds some context beyond the name but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but slightly dense; a clearer structure (e.g., a colon or list) could improve scannability, though it remains acceptable.
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?
Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the scope of the spec. It could mention that this is a reference resource and not an action, but the nature of a 'spec' makes that mostly implicit. Overall, it provides enough context for basic understanding.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). There is nothing to document, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The baseline of 4 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 identifies the tool as the machine verification spec for the attestation service, detailing what it covers (how sealed claims are hashed, put on chain, and verified). It goes beyond the name and gives a concrete understanding of the resource, though it lacks an explicit action verb and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like proof_spec.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this spec versus other attestation-related tools. It doesn't state that this is a reference/documentation resource or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly the same territory: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report all present overlapping per-chain market analysis at different comprehensiveness levels. attest_spec and proof_spec are also near-identical, and attest_status, attestation_stats, and list_attestations use similar attestation vocabulary. Most data tools have unique jobs, but the overlapping report and verification tiers create real misselection risk.
The server consistently uses snake_case but mixes noun-style data endpoints like prices and wall_map with command-style actions like attest, buy_key, and verify_reveal. Report names are also uneven: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report signal only vague depth differences. The set is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.
With 29 tools, this exceeds the heavy threshold and spans roughly four distinct functional areas: market data, attestation, key management, and webhooks. Each tool may earn its place individually, but the overall menu is too large for one MCP server; splitting it into data and attestation/administration servers would be clearer.
The attestation lifecycle is well covered with creation, status, listing, reveals, stats, and independent verification, and the key purchase and webhook workflows are also complete. The main gaps are historical-depth data, explicit key revocation, and a direct hire action despite hireable agents being listed, but agents can generally work around these. Core workflows do not dead-end.