Return the JSON Schema published for the signed HODLXXI capabilities document.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a JSON Schema, which is a read operation and implies no side effects, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the schema is static or dynamically generated, or any authentication requirements. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted words. It clearly states what is returned and for what document.
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 is simple (no parameters, no nested structures) and has an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose ascending from siblings. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It adequately differentiates by specifying 'schema' vs the document itself.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. With no parameters, the description's job is mainly to clarify the return value, and it does that. However, it does not describe the schema's contents or its typical use, which could be helpful but is not required.
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 that the tool returns a JSON Schema for a specific signed document, using the verb 'Return' and the resource 'JSON Schema... for the signed HODLXXI capabilities document'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the schema of the capabilities document, whereas siblings like hodlxxi_get_capabilities likely return the document itself.
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 usage context (getting the schema for the capabilities document) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings. For example, it does not say 'use this to understand the structure of the capabilities document' or contrast with hodlxxi_get_capabilities. Given the sibling set, some inference is possible but not explicit.
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.