seneschal_private_watch_infoReturns the current price, supported chains, NFPT upstream health, and security notes for the view-key payment-monitoring service. Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Returns'), states return categories (price, chains, health, security notes), and adds the cost trait ('Free to call'). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter metadata endpoint this is adequate.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the returned metadata and the cost note. No filler or redundancy, and every phrase earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main returned categories: current price, supported chains, NFPT upstream health, and security notes. It lacks structural detail about the response format, but for a zero-input info service this gives an agent sufficient high-level understanding to decide whether to call it.
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 has no properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; it appropriately focuses on return values.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current price, supported chains, NFPT upstream health, and security notes for the view-key payment-monitoring service.' This explicitly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling private_watch tools (create, derive, historical, topup) by focusing on service metadata.
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 provides clear context about what data it returns and notes it is 'Free to call,' implying low-risk usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of sibling info tools like seneschal_health or zecmon_info, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied but not directly addressed.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.