The plan to hold the ground under a place for a session: the face at the level the duration asks (a tick, an hour, six hours, a day), the next term, the reserve, the dollars if you bid alone, the claim_url — and the exact x402 requirements to sign before the gavel. Pass your own salt (16–64 hex) and the house never holds it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| salt | No | ||
| hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does add some useful behavioral detail: the caller supplies a salt (16–64 hex) that 'the house never holds', and the response includes 'exact x402 requirements to sign.' It does not state whether the call is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the full response shape looks like.
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 short and information-dense, with no obvious filler, and it front-loads the core concept. However, the structure is poetic and opaque rather than agent-friendly, with undefined terms like 'face', 'gavel', and 'house' that force the agent to parse jargon.
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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete: it omits the role of lat/lon, does not explain when to use the tool versus siblings, and gives no clear response format or side-effect information. It does provide some useful signals, such as the returned fields and salt handling, so it is not wholly inadequate.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to the parameters: 'duration' hints at hours, 'place' vaguely implies lat/lon, and salt is explicitly described as 16–64 hex. It does not explain that lat and lon are required, what their formats should be, or how the default of 1 hour behaves.
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 indicates the tool produces a quote-like 'plan to hold the ground under a place for a session' and lists pricing-related fields, so it is not merely a tautology. However, it never plainly says 'get a quote', uses cryptic metaphors like 'face', 'gavel', and 'house', and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools such as ground, hold_ground, or bid.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call quote_ground versus bid, ground, hold_ground, or claim. The phrase 'sign before the gavel' implies this is a pre-bid or quote step, but the conditions, prerequisites, and alternatives are left to inference.
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.