Your registered webhooks for your tenant identity (your paying wallet, or your key id), optionally narrowed to one id. Requires your tenant so it can only show your own webhooks; never returns the signing secret
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| tenant | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| found | Yes | ||
| webhooks | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool scopes results to the caller's tenant identity and never returns the signing secret. These are valuable privacy/security details that go beyond what the input schema alone conveys. It could additionally clarify pagination or read-only status, but the provided disclosures are sufficient for safe use.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds necessary security context. Every clause earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise, structured documentation.
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 tool with two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the tenancy scoping, and the secret non-disclosure. It lacks explicit alternative guidance (e.g., 'to register, use webhook_register'), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 does so by explaining 'tenant' as 'your paying wallet, or your key id' and 'id' as an optional narrowing to one webhook. This adds meaningful semantic meaning to both parameters, though it stops short of giving type formats or examples.
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 indicates this tool retrieves a list of registered webhooks for the caller's tenant, optionally filtered by an id. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the phrasing 'Your registered webhooks...' makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from webhook_register and webhook_unregister by emphasizing read-only scope and non-disclosure of secrets.
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 states a prerequisite ('Requires your tenant') and a scoping rule ('only show your own webhooks'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as webhook_register or webhook_unregister. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.