Check a key order created with buy_key. Takes the claim token, reports whether the payment has been seen and whether the key is ready to claim
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly frames the tool as non-mutating ('check', 'reports') and discloses the two behavioral facts that matter: whether payment has been seen and whether the key is ready to claim. This is enough for an agent to know the operation does not claim or alter the order itself.
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 tight sentences, with the main purpose stated first and the return semantics following immediately. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of schema fields.
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 read-only status tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the ordering relationship with buy_key, the claim token input, and the two status dimensions the agent needs. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to call it and interpret what it means.
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 and only one parameter, claim_token. The description does mention that the tool 'takes the claim token', which gives the parameter meaning beyond its type, but it does not specify where the token comes from or its format. For a single opaque token, this is acceptable but not richly informative.
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 names a specific operation ('Check a key order'), identifies the originating action ('created with buy_key'), and tells the agent exactly what the tool reports (whether payment was seen and whether the key is ready to claim). It clearly positions itself as the status counterpart to buy_key and claim_key, which is enough to differentiate it from its siblings.
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 clearly signals when to use the tool: after creating a key order with buy_key, to check payment status and claim readiness. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like claim_key, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the ordering.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among report tools (situation_report, deep_report, market_state) and spec tools (attest_spec, proof_spec). These could confuse an agent selecting the most appropriate endpoint.
Tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, but follow mixed patterns: verb_noun for actions (buy_key, list_attestations) and bare nouns or noun phrases for data endpoints (prices, congestion, wall_map). This is readable but not fully uniform.
With 26 tools, the set is heavy and covers multiple domains (attestation, market data, key management, webhooks). It sits just above the borderline for comfort, but the breadth is justifiable given the server's multi-purpose nature.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage for attestation (create, read, verify), key management (buy, claim, status), and webhooks (register, status, unregister), plus a wide range of market data endpoints. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends.