Claim the API key for a paid buy_key order. Takes the claim token. The key is returned exactly once, save it. Payments usually become claimable within 30 minutes of confirming on chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully warns that 'the key is returned exactly once' and that it should be saved, which is significant behavioral information beyond the schema. It also explains the payment timing. It stops short of potential failure modes or what happens if the key is lost, but the disclosed behavior is clear.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: purpose, input, the one-time warning, and timing. The description is short, clear, and front-loaded with the primary use case followed by actionable details.
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, one-action tool, the description covers the goal, input, critical output behavior, and expected timing. Since the schema includes marked output details after 30 minutes, enough for an agent to invoke it successfully. It could still benefit from mentioning where the claim_token comes from, such as from a prior buy_key call, but overall it is complete for the operation.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'Takes the claim token,' which adds only a little meaning beyond the parameter name 'claim_token' in the schema. It does not explain where the token comes from or its format, though the parameter name itself is self-descriptive.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Claim the API key for a paid buy_key order.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from purchase or status-check tools. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides clear usage context: it applies to paid buy_key orders and notes that 'payments usually become claimable within 30 minutes of confirming on chain.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or direct users to alternatives like key_order_status, so it lacks the exclusion guidance needed for a 5.
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.