Self-service HOGSWAP API key, step 1 of 2 — zero human. Returns a challenge; sign its exact bytes with the address's key in YOUR wallet tooling, then call verify_registration. NEVER pass mnemonics or private keys to any tool — signing happens in YOUR wallet, never here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the challenge-response behavior, including that signing happens in the user's wallet and not in the tool, and that secrets must never be shared. It also clarifies that the tool returns a challenge rather than completing registration.
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 sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and step, plus a critical security warning. Every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter step in a two-step flow, the description covers purpose, expected output, next step, and security context. The presence of an output schema means return format specifics are not required in the description.
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 only an 'address' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description contextualizes it as the address whose key is used for signing, but doesn't explicitly define the parameter's format or details, leaving some interpretation.
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 this is step 1 of a self-service HOGSWAP API key registration, and explicitly distinguishes it from verify_registration (the next step). It identifies the action (registering an agent) and the output (a challenge).
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?
It explicitly instructs to sign the challenge and then call verify_registration, providing a clear workflow. It also warns to never pass mnemonics/private keys, establishing security-related usage boundaries.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: quoting vs building swaps, managing watches, handling payments, registration steps, and LP valuation. Even related tools like get_credit_offer and pay_x402_invoice are clearly separated as 'create offer' vs 'pay invoice'. No two tools appear to duplicate functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using verbs like get, list, build, set, delete, pay, register, verify, value. Read operations are consistently divided into get_ (single item) and list_ (collections), and the rest are action-oriented. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 12 tools, the server covers its main domains—swap quoting/building, payment, credit management, watch management, agent registration, and LP valuation—without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place, and the count fits comfortably within the typical 3-15 tool range for a well-scoped server.
The tool set covers core workflows end-to-end: quote to swap, credit top-up to payment, watch registration to listing/deletion, and two-step agent registration. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated get_watch (though list_watches covers it) and no way to inspect past transactions or offers, but agents can work around these without major friction.