Self-service key issuance, step 2 of 2. Returns your hsk_ key ONCE — store it yourself; it is not recoverable and this server does not keep it. Send it on later calls as Authorization: Bearer, X-API-Key, or the api_key argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| challenge | Yes | ||
| signature_b64 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and succeeds in highlighting the most critical trait: the key is returned only once, is not recoverable, and is not stored on the server. This is essential for preventing data loss. It could add more detail on failure modes or what happens to the registration state, but the core behavior is well covered.
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 just two sentences, with every word earning its place. The critical warning about one-time key retrieval is front-loaded, and the usage instruction for later calls is concise. There is zero redundancy or filler.
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 description excels in conveying the tool's purpose and the one-time key behavior, which is contextually important for a key-issuance flow. However, it is incomplete for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, and it does not explicitly connect to the sibling register_agent step. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter semantics remain a significant gap.
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 input schema provides zero description coverage for the three required parameters (address, challenge, signature_b64), and the description does not compensate. It gives no hints about what these fields represent or how they should be populated, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.
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 the tool's function: 'Self-service key issuance, step 2 of 2' and 'Returns your hsk_ key ONCE', distinguishing it from sibling tools as the final step that returns the API key. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 establishes clear sequential context as 'step 2 of 2', implying it follows register_agent. It also provides explicit guidance on how to use the key in subsequent calls ('Send it on later calls as Authorization: Bearer, X-API-Key, or the api_key argument'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.
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.