A tenant’s full sealed-claim stream, newest first. Matured claims include their text and salt. Optional limit up to 200
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| tenant | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| tenant | Yes | ||
| records | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavior: ordering (newest first), content (matured claims include text and salt), and a limit (up to 200). However, it does not mention whether the stream is paginated, what happens if tenant is invalid, or any other side effects. It adds some useful behavioral context beyond the name, but not a complete profile.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes import behavior details (ordering, limit, matured claims content). No wasted words; every phrase contributes understanding.
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 simple listing tool with 2 parameters, the description covers the primary return value ('full sealed-claim stream'), ordering, and limit. It does not explain what a sealed-claim stream is in depth, but that may be domain knowledge. An output schema is present (per context), though not shown, so the description's mention of claim contents is sufficient. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the limit parameter ('Optional limit up to 200') and implies the tenant parameter is the scope ('A tenant's full sealed-claim stream'). However, it does not specify that tenant is required (schema does), nor does it describe acceptable formats or defaults. It adds meaningful context for limit and general tenant semantics, but leaves gaps.
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 a tenant's full sealed-claim stream, newest first, which directly aligns with 'list_attestations'. It specifies the resource (sealed claims) and scope (per tenant), and it is distinct from sibling tools like attest or attestation_stats which have different purposes.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as attestation_stats or list_reveals. The only usage hint is 'Optional limit up to 200', which is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.
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.