Remove a webhook. Takes the id and the signing secret from registration, only the holder of the secret can remove it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| secret | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| removed | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('only the holder of the secret can remove it') and implies a destructive action via 'Remove'. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., immediate deactivation) or error behavior, making transparency partial.
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?
One concise sentence with clear structure: it states the purpose first, then the required inputs and condition. No unnecessary words or 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?
The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present), and the description covers the core purpose, required inputs, and authorization condition. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) or error cases, but for this tool that is sufficient.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that 'id' is the webhook identifier and 'secret' is the signing secret from registration. This adds meaning beyond the raw string types.
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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'webhook', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webhook_register (which creates) and webhook_status (which checks status).
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 through the verb 'Remove' and mentions the prerequisite of having the id and signing secret from registration. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like webhook_register or webhook_status, so it lacks explicit when-to-use 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.
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.