Return a declared covenant artifact by validated covenant identifier, including descriptor, policy, funding status, public keys, and non-claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| covenant_id | No | hodlxxi-herald-covenant-v1 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'validated covenant identifier' and lists output fields. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, require authentication, or explain possible side effects, even though these are typical expectations for a getter.
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, information-dense sentence with no redundancy or filler, perfectly matching the tool's simple scope.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's main input and output concepts, and the existence of an output schema fills in return-type details. However, the term 'non-claims' is unexplained and could confuse agents, and common use-case clarifications are omitted, leaving a middling level of completeness.
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 description clarifies that the parameter is a 'validated covenant identifier', which maps to covenant_id, but provides minimal detail about format or the default value. As schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by naming the identifier's purpose, but more specificity is needed.
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 'Return' and identifies the resource as a 'declared covenant artifact', enumerating key fields (descriptor, policy, funding status, public keys, non-claims) which clearly distinguishes it from mere verbosity. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_covenant_countdown, so it misses a point for explicit differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only implies the need for a covenant identifier. No exclusions or comparison to siblings such as get_trust_events or get_receipt are provided, so usage context is absent.
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.