robyn_netting_accountWhether an address is enrolled (and therefore custodied), its internal balance, recent history, and nextNonce — which you MUST use when signing the next transfer or withdrawal. An address that never enrolled is reported as not custodied. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM address (0x…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 tool is read-only and explains the edge case for addresses that never enrolled (reported as not custodied). It does not detail error behavior or output format, but for a simple query this is reasonably transparent.
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 sentences, front-loads key information, and includes the critical MUST-use note about nextNonce. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main output concepts (enrolment, balance, history, nextNonce) and an important edge case. It could be more explicit about the return format, but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 has full coverage (100%) for the single 'address' parameter, with a description 'EVM address (0x…)'. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond reusing the term 'address', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 reports enrolment state, internal balance, recent history, and nextNonce for an address. It is specific about the resource (netting account) and the operation (query/report), though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools like robyn_netting_info.
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 clear context: the tool is for checking whether an address is enrolled and for obtaining the nextNonce that MUST be used when signing transfers or withdrawals. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.