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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful behavioral details: newest-first ordering, matured claims include text and salt, and optional limit up to 200. It does not disclose pagination or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a read-only list operation.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It covers scope, ordering, content, and limit constraints without fluff.
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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the tenant scope, ordering, special case for matured claims, and limit. The output schema presumably covers return fields, so no further return documentation is needed.
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%, but the description explains both parameters: 'tenant' is the scope (tenant's stream) and 'limit' is optional with a max of 200. This compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify tenant format or limit type beyond schema.
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 lists a tenant's full sealed-claim stream, sorted newest first. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_reveals by specifying 'sealed-claim' and mentions matured claims include text and salt, making the resource and scope explicit.
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 implies usage for retrieving a tenant's claims but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_reveals or attestation_stats. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so guidance is only implicit.
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.