Return the signed Nostr announcement template, advertised NIP-89/NIP-90 kinds, discovery links, and explicit non-goals.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'signed' announcement data and explicitly mentions 'non-goals', which is somewhat transparent. However, it does not clarify what 'signed' means operationally (e.g., requires verification, network fetch) or whether any side effects occur. It is a reasonable description of a read-only getter but could be more explicit about behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Return' and enumerates exactly what content is delivered. Every word adds value, and it avoids 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 tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects of what the tool returns. It could be considered complete, though it might briefly note the purpose of the announcement (e.g., discovery via NIP-89/90) or the audience. Overall, sufficient for a no-argument getter.
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 baseline is 4. The description focuses on the output, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. It does not waste space on parameter details.
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 the tool returns a 'signed Nostr announcement template' with specific content types (NIP-89/NIP-90 kinds, discovery links, non-goals). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools, which likely return other metadata.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of many sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_agent_discovery, get_capabilities) makes it unclear which agent queries should target this announcement endpoint versus another. The description implies it's for Nugget announcements, but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.
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.