Initiate a community ban election against a member.
Not yet implemented — will create a GitHub Issue with a 72-hour discussion period and Lightning-funded economic voting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| target_npub | Yes |
| 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 full burden. It discloses planned behavior (creating a GitHub Issue with a 72-hour period and voting) but does not specify what the tool actually does today when invoked, such as returning an error or being a no-op. This lack of clarity about current behavior is a significant gap.
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 two clear sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a concise caveat. Every sentence delivers essential information with no redundancy or filler.
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 is marked 'Not yet implemented,' the description should clarify behavior on invocation and any limitations. It also lacks details about the output schema (which exists but is not described) and how the voting mechanism works. The current content leaves critical gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. The phrase 'against a member' hints at target_npub and 'reason' is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, leaving ambiguous details like reason format or constraints.
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 action ('Initiate a community ban election') and the target ('against a member'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cast_ban_vote and check_ban_status by focusing on the initiation step.
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 implied usage context (used to start a ban election) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Not yet implemented' warning serves as a caveat but does not suggest alternatives or explain how to proceed, so guidance is minimal.
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 target a distinct resource or lifecycle step: role-specific registrations, campaign tools, relay tools, and doc/status tools are clearly separated. Minor overlap exists between lookup_member/resolve_service and about/get_rulebook, but the descriptions are detailed enough to route an agent correctly.
Almost all tool names use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun structure (register_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, report_*). A few noun-phrase doc/status tools like about, economic_model, network_advisory, and service_status deviate, but the overall pattern remains readable and predictable.
At 30 tools, this surface is heavy and exceeds the 25-tool threshold, especially for what is mostly a registry/oracle service. Several tools are explicitly not yet implemented, and the count would benefit from deferring those stubs or consolidating related doc/resolution tools.
Core areas are covered: member lookup, role registration, operator updates, campaigns, relays, governance docs, and status/advisory queries. However, some workflows are stubs (ban elections, citizen renouncement) and lifecycle gaps remain for authority/advocate updates or deregistration, plus no ban-election status/result tool exists.