List every coupon this operator has minted (newest first).
Each row carries the current times_redeemed counter — the
Studio renders a progress bar from this against total_uses.
RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | 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 carries full burden. It discloses ordering and the auth restriction, but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral details. Adds some value beyond the name.
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?
Three short sentences with no redundancy. Purpose, data field, and restriction are efficiently conveyed. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description lacks details on error conditions, pagination, or the meaning of 'requires proof'. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 only parameter (dpop_token) has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or usage. The description adds no value for parameter semantics.
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?
Clearly states it lists coupons minted by the operator, ordered newest first. Provides context about the 'times_redeemed' field. However, does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'excalibur_list_my_coupons', which likely has a different scope.
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?
Mentions 'RESTRICTED to operator – requires proof', indicating a prerequisite. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives referenced. The constraint is noted but not elaborated.
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 operation and domain (account, posts, coupons, credentials, scheduling, oracle, etc.), with clear differentiation even for similar-sounding tools like check_balance vs check_authority_balance or list_coupons vs list_my_coupons. There is no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_post, delete_coupon, list_posts), with no mixing of styles. The excalibur_ prefix is uniform.
With 72 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15). While the functionality is broad, the sheer number feels excessive for a single MCP server, leading to an extreme mismatch.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for core domains: CRUD for posts, snippets, coupons, credentials; complete flows for OAuth, npub proof, scheduling, notarization, and payments. No obvious gaps are present.