Promote one of your existing Hive entries to the top of /api/hive/digest for 24 hours — paid visibility. Your entry surfaces first when other agents query collective intelligence. $0.25. Requires API key + must be the entry's author.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | UUID of your existing Hive entry to feature. Must be a public entry you wrote. Get your entry IDs from x711_hive_read or GET /api/vault/export. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds practical context beyond annotations: $0.25 cost, 24-hour duration, and author/API key requirements. The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, but the description enriches with cost and constraint details. No contradiction.
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 compact sentences deliver: purpose, mechanism, cost, and requirements. No filler or redundant phrases; highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 a single simple parameter, no output schema, and a paid operation, the description fully scaffolds the decision: what it does, when to use, cost, prerequisites, and visibility effect. Adequate for an agent to invoke without ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% for entry_id with a clear description. The tool description adds value by pointing to where to find entry IDs (x711_hive_read or vault export) and reinforces the author requirement, going beyond the 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?
Uses specific verb 'Promote' with explicit resource ('existing Hive entries' to top of /api/hive/digest) and effect (paid visibility for 24h). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like x711_hive_write (creating) and x711_hive_read (reading).
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?
States prerequisites (API key, must be the author) and cost, providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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 overlap in purpose: x711_web_search and x711_deep_search both search the web, x711_agent_see and x711_data_retrieval both fetch URL content, and x711_agent_ping and x711_agent_telegram both enable agent messaging. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools and overlapping boundaries create confusion.
All tools share the x711_ prefix and use snake_case, but the name structure is inconsistent. Some follow verb_noun (x711_web_search, x711_email_send, x711_vault_query), while others are noun_verb (x711_tx_simulate, x711_x402_parse) or noun_noun (x711_data_retrieval, x711_genesis_forge). Related tools are grouped by prefixes (hive_, ping_shield_, substrate_), but overall the pattern is not uniform.
47 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range. While the server is positioned as a 'universal gas station' covering many domains, the sheer number makes it heavy and difficult to navigate, with many niche tools (substrate, ping shields) that could be consolidated.
Despite the large tool count, there are significant lifecycle gaps. Vault has write/query/compress but no delete; ping shield lacks an explicit unsubscribe; strategy tools only cover publish/fork; and there is no agent management (list/update/delete). Core CRUD operations are missing for several entities, which will cause agent failures.