latest_in_chainLatest pulse in chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pulse | No | Pulse data object | |
| statusCode | No | HTTP status code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "chain_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "pulse": {
+ "description": "Pulse data object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "statusCode": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention what 'pulse' means, edge cases, or response details, missing an opportunity to add value.
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 extremely short (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load critical information to aid agent understanding.
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 low complexity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description should at least explain what a 'pulse' is and what the tool returns. It fails to do so, leaving the tool definition incomplete.
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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no info about the single parameter 'chain_id'. It only says 'Latest pulse in chain', which does not clarify the parameter's purpose or format.
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 'Latest pulse in chain' is vague and tautological. It does not clearly state what action the tool performs or what a 'pulse' is. Among siblings like 'last_pulse' and 'pulse_at', it fails to distinguish itself.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs its siblings. For instance, it does not explain how it differs from 'last_pulse' or 'pulse_by_chain_pulse', leaving the AI agent without criteria for selection.
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.