Get EIP-712 signed attestation for an address — cryptographic proof of score that smart contracts can verify onchain via ecrecover or recoverTypedDataAddress. Use when you need oracle-grade trust, not just an HTTP read. Returns signed payload + domain + types + signer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes what it returns (signed payload, domain, types, signer) and how it can be verified. No annotations provided, but description covers core behavior. Lacks details on error handling or access requirements.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key action, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and usage.
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?
Covers purpose, usage, and return format. Missing details on address format and error conditions. Given simplicity, nearly 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter info: only mentions 'for an address' without specifying format or validation. Adequate but could be improved.
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 'Get EIP-712 signed attestation' with specific resource 'cryptographic proof of score' and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning on-chain verification.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when you need oracle-grade trust, not just an HTTP read', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives.
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.