Return the public RFC-style API linkset catalog with service descriptions, documentation links, and status links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying the catalog is 'public' and describes the contents, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention response format or operational details.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the artifact and its key components efficiently.
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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog fetch with an output schema, the description covers the resource and content areas well. It could mention the catalog's relationship to other discovery endpoints, but that is not necessary for simple selection and invocation.
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 zero parameters, making parameter semantics N/A. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail because there are none.
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: 'Return the public RFC-style API linkset catalog with service descriptions, documentation links, and status links.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_identity, get_capabilities, and get_openid_configuration.
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 context is implied—use this when you need the API catalog or linkset—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools that might overlap or specify when not to use this one.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific documents or endpoints (e.g., identity, capabilities, JWKS, receipts). However, some overlap exists among discovery-related tools (e.g., get_agent_discovery, get_agent_identity, get_capabilities, get_marketplace_listing) that could cause confusion about which to use for a given purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'hodlxxi_get_' or 'hodlxxi_verify_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase. The verbs are consistent (get/verify) and the nouns are specific, making the naming predictable and uniform.
With 26 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable for a read-only server that exposes a wide array of public documents and metadata. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, so the count is justified, though it borders on heavy.
The server covers a comprehensive set of read-only operations for its domain: identity, capabilities, skills, receipts, trust events, OAuth/OIDC metadata, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all covenants or reports (only get by identifier), but the core surface is well-covered.