Agent's registration + records (claims, verdicts, payout traces) for a DID.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"did": "<did>"
},
"name": "wide_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about what records are returned, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, unknown-DID behavior, data freshness, or response structure.
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 definition is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the returned resource and immediately scopes it to a DID.
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 read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives the main return categories. However, with no output schema and no parameter description, it should do more to define the DID input and edge-case behavior.
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 sole parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to clarify it. It says only 'for a DID', which largely repeats the parameter name and does not specify the expected DID format or whether it is the agent's own DID.
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 identifies the resource well: an agent's registration and records, including claims, verdicts, and payout traces, scoped by DID. It is clearly a status/records lookup, but it lacks a direct verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as wide_agent_register or wide_claim.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The status/read nature is implied, but the description does not say to use it for checking an agent's state, nor does it exclude registration or claiming flows.
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.