Get the public Nibgate activity ledger: recent views, unlocks, payments, and onchain ratings across verified sites. Includes wallet addresses, tx hashes, and receipts where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Pagination offset. | |
| type | No | Filter by activity type. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). | |
| domain | No | Filter by site domain, e.g. example.nibgate.xyz. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the data is public, scoped to verified sites, and may include wallet addresses, tx hashes, and receipts 'where available.' However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sort order, or any access constraints, leaving behavioral transparency adequate but incomplete.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and purpose, then adds useful return-content details without restating schema 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?
For a read-only query with no required parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably explains the response contents and public scope. It could benefit from explicit notes on filter usage or sibling routing, but the schema already covers the parameters, so the description is largely sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely echoes the 'type' enum values and the result fields, but it adds no new meaning for skip, limit, or domain beyond what the schema already explains.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the public Nibgate activity ledger') and enumerates the included activity types ('views, unlocks, payments, onchain ratings'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling stats/leaderboard tools. It stops short of fully differentiating by explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 implies this is the tool to call when the public activity ledger is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direction toward sibling tools. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and the sibling list rather than being told.
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 targets a distinct concern: content discovery, rankings, ledger activity, platform totals, and Nibshare resolution. There is no meaningful overlap between them, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: explore_content, get_leaderboards, get_ledger, get_platform_stats, resolve_share. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a public data/read-only platform server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The toolkit covers core read-only needs: finding content, viewing rankings, checking ledger activity, seeing platform totals, and resolving share links. A direct content or creator detail endpoint is missing, but the existing tools cover the main discovery and analytics workflows.