get_rowOne row with everything behind it: the verbatim advertised quote and the first-party page it was read from, the capture date, both block heights, both share prices, the arithmetic, the exact eth_call payloads needed to reproduce it, and any right of reply the protocol has published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | Row key, from list_rows. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the content returned, but does not state that the operation is read-only, mention error behavior, prerequisites, or side effects. The name 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any other behavioral traits.
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 one long run-on sentence with a colon and a list. It is informative but not polished; it could be broken into clearer components. However, it is front-loaded with 'One row' and is not excessively long, so it is acceptable but not exemplary.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the row's complete contents, which is helpful. However, it omits operational context such as the need to call list_rows first (only in schema), read-only assurance, and potential error scenarios. For a simple single-param retrieval tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 fully describes the single 'row' parameter with an enum and a note 'from list_rows' (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does clarify what the retrieved row will contain, which indirectly helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose. This matches the baseline for schema-heavy definitions.
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 conveys that this tool returns a single row with comprehensive detail, distinguishing it from list_rows which presumably provides an overview. The noun-phrase style is less direct than a verb+resource, but the title 'Get one row in full' reinforces intent. Specific contents are enumerated, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The schema hints at using list_rows to obtain the row key, but the description itself does not clarify when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_right_of_reply, especially since the row includes right-of-reply data. The description lacks any comparative context.
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.