hmacCompute an HMAC (hex) of text with a secret key. algorithm = sha1, sha256 (default), sha384, or sha512. Keyless/offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The secret key. | |
| text | Yes | The message to authenticate. | |
| algorithm | No | sha1 | sha256 (default) | sha384 | sha512. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annontations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context about being offline and keyless, which complements the annotations without contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no extraneous content. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively conveys purpose, algorithms, and online/offline behavior. Output format ('hex') is implied, making it sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are already clear. The description repeats some schema info (algorithms) and adds 'keyless/offline' context that aids overall understanding but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.
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 the verb 'Compute', the resource 'HMAC (hex) of text with a secret key', and enumerates supported algorithms. Distinguishes itself from the sibling 'hash' tool by requiring a key.
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 'Keyless/offline' implying no network dependency, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like the 'hash' tool or provide exclusion criteria.
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 have distinct purposes despite overlapping domains like prediction markets, but detailed descriptions help agents differentiate. A few tools like `ask_pipeworx` and `deep_research` could be confused without careful reading.
Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing `ask_`, `polymarket_`, `scan_`, `recent_`, `entity_`, etc., with no unifying convention. The server name 'Hash' mismatches the tool set entirely.
32 tools is on the high side for a focused server, but the set covers many areas. The count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, yet each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set feels like a collection of unrelated utilities rather than a coherent domain. Core hashing functionality is minimal, while other areas like prediction markets are over-represented with gaps elsewhere.