Return the paginated public trust-event chain with hashes, receipt linkage, timestamps, public key, and signatures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is public and paginated, but it does not explain pagination behavior (e.g., max limit, offset semantics), ordering, error handling, or if the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Return'). The mention of 'public' is useful, but more detail on constraints would be needed for a higher score.
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 that immediately states the action and the core content. No filler words or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose.
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 simple parameter set (2 integers with defaults) and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It does state the types of data included (hashes, receipts, timestamps, etc.), which is sufficient for a low-complexity tool. However, it could mention any limitations or ordering to be more complete, but it's adequate.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining limit and offset. It only says 'paginated' which implies the parameters are for pagination, but it does not define their meaning, range, or effect. The baseline for low coverage is that the description should provide explicit parameter guidance, which it fails to do.
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's function: returning a paginated chain of trust events with specific data fields (hashes, receipt linkage, timestamps, public key, signatures). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trust_summary or get_attestations.
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 provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools. The user is left without guidance on whether to choose this over get_trust_summary or other related tools.
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.