pulse_by_chain_pulsePulse by chain + pulse index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | ||
| pulse_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,
+ "pulse_id": 12345
+ }
+]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?
Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds no behavioral context. It does not describe the output, side effects, or any prerequisites, offering minimal value beyond the structured metadata.
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 a 5-word fragment without a complete sentence or structure. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting the opportunity to provide clarity.
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?
Despite having an output schema and moderate complexity (2 params, many siblings), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools, explain what a pulse is, or give any operational context, making it nearly useless for an agent.
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 must compensate. It hints that chain_id and pulse_id identify a specific pulse, but it does not define valid values, formats, or the meaning of 'pulse index'. The compensation is insufficient for an agent to know what parameters are acceptable.
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 'Pulse by chain + pulse index' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name. It fails to specify what a 'pulse' is or what operation the tool performs, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'last_pulse', 'pulse_at', 'latest_in_chain'). No use cases, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.
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.