list_rowsThe roster: every vault the Kerne Honesty Index measures, with its key, protocol, symbol, chain and contract address. Cheap. Call this first to find the key for get_row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is cheap and enumerates the returned fields, but does not mention pagination, output volume, or other operational constraints. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but not rich in behavioral context.
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 remarkably concise: one sentence states the resource and its contents, a second notes the cost, and a third gives usage direction. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the included fields, and its role in the workflow with get_row. The only minor omission is explicit mention of the output format (e.g., an array) or any response size expectations, but these are not critical for this simple listing operation.
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, making the empty input schema complete. The description adds no parameter details simply because there are none to describe; this aligns with the baseline score of 4 for param-less tools.
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 the complete roster of vaults (rows) on the Honesty Index, listing specific fields (key, protocol, symbol, chain, contract address). It explicitly positions itself as the list-all counterpart to get_row, making its 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?
The instruction 'Call this first to find the key for get_row' provides explicit when-to-use guidance and names the subsequent tool. The word 'Cheap' additionally signals that it is a low-cost operation, encouraging use before more specific lookups.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the honesty index: the board summary, corrections log, methodology, right-of-reply records, individual row details, and roster listing. There is no overlap in purpose or output, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent get_* or list_* prefix pattern, with clear, descriptive nouns indicating the resource. This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary piece of the index's surface area without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full domain: a summary board, per-row details, roster lookup, methodology, corrections history, and right-of-reply mechanism. There are no obvious gaps for reading and understanding the index, and the append-only nature makes write tools unnecessary.