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?
Discloses that it only returns the user's own webhooks and never reveals the signing secret, which is important behavioral context. With no annotations, this description provides useful safety and security details, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior beyond 'show'.
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?
Two focused sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the main functionality, the second adds safety and scope constraints.
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?
Given the output schema and simple parameter set, the description provides enough context for usage. It covers the essential constraints (tenant scope, optional id, secret non-disclosure), making it adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 description explains 'tenant' as the paying wallet or key id and 'id' as an optional narrowing filter, partially compensating for zero schema descriptions. It clarifies that omitting id returns all webhooks, but lacks details on id format or pagination.
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 webhooks registered to the user's tenant, optionally filtered by id. It distinguishes itself from webhook_register/webhook_unregister by focusing on viewing rather than modifying. A slight deduction for lacking an explicit verb like 'list'.
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 the tenant requirement and that it only shows one's own webhooks, implying a security context. It does not explicitly recommend using this tool over siblings for status checks, but the sibling names make the distinction evident.
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.