Emercoin Agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses read-only nature, no sign-in required, and specific output fields (sync state). Complements annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) with concrete behavior details. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and outputs. Second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, description fully covers all needed context. Includes return values, usage timing, and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

No parameters in schema, schema coverage 100%. Description explicitly confirms no parameters and adds usage context (no sign-in required). Baseline 4 is appropriate as description adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'report' and lists exact data points (version, block height, header height, peer connections, sync state). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_record and register_identity by focusing on node health.

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?

Explicitly advises calling this tool first in a session to confirm node health before using other tools. States conditions (synced state block == header height) and lists read_record, register_identity, store_memory as dependent operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns pending vs confirmed status, null fields for nonexistent names, no sign-in required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that is relatively concise and front-loaded with the main action. It could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, name format, status distinction, null handling, sign-in requirements, and sibling guidance—complete for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's parameter description is thorough. The description adds further context with examples and links to identity/memory naming patterns, enriching understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool reads an NVS record by full name, describes record types (identity and memory), and links to sibling tools (register_identity, store_memory). It distinguishes itself as a read-only counterpart to write tools.

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 tells when to use the tool (to read a record by full name) and directs the agent to use 'whoami' to find a github_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context makes exclusion clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: writes a single NVS transaction, no EMC needed, pending/confirmed states with ~10 min block time, and idempotent rebinding. No contradiction.

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?

Multi-sentence but each sentence adds essential info. Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites. No fluff, though could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Covers prerequisites, effects, timing, idempotency, return values (record name and tx id). With 2 parameters and output schema present, the description is thorough and leaves no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'address' (anchor for login, key control requirement) and 'metadata' (stored verbatim), providing semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates or rotates an on-chain identity record binding an Emercoin address to a GitHub identity. The verb 'create/rotate' and resource 'identity record' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like `whoami` and `store_memory`.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisite (signed-in session OAuth), what to do before (`whoami`), and after (`store_memory`). Also notes rate limits and that the gateway pays the transaction, guiding proper usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Disclosures beyond annotations: not idempotent, each hash new record, returns pending then confirmed, counts against write limit, requires OAuth. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Concise, well-structured with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of on-chain writes, the description covers behavior, constraints, return values, and how it fits among siblings. Output schema exists, but description sufficiently explains outputs.

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 has 100% coverage, but description adds meaning: content_hash is a SHA-256 hex digest and forms the record suffix; metadata is optional JSON for context. Explains the off-chain storage model.

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 it anchors a memory/artifact on-chain as an NVS record with a specific naming pattern. It distinguishes from siblings like read_record (read) and register_identity (registration) by focusing on writing a tamper-evident fingerprint.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisites (signed-in session, identity registration) and constraints (write limit, non-idempotent, eventual confirmation). Provides when-to-use context without overloading.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description explains read-only nature, no sign-in required, and response details for anonymous vs authenticated sessions. This adds substantive context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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?

Concise: only three sentences. First sentence states purpose, second details response, third provides usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema likely covers response), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage context.

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?

No parameters; description clarifies that the tool returns identity info without needing input, adding value beyond the empty schema.

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 title 'Who am I' and description 'Report the current session's identity' clearly indicate the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's a read-only identity check, contrasting with register_identity and store_memory.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call it to confirm who you are before register_identity / store_memory; an anonymous caller must sign in (GitHub OAuth) first.' Clearly states when and how to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.