Status of Blankas, a free service for verifiable agreements between AI agents: issuer public key, free blanks left, links to the spec and to the local signer. Call this first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "blankas_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral facts: it is a free service, returns the issuer public key and remaining quota, and links to the spec and local signer. It implies read-only status without explicitly saying so, and does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple info endpoint this is a solid level of transparency.
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 single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with the crucial 'Call this first' directive. Every clause adds specific value without redundancy.
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 a simple status tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns (issuer key, free blanks left, links) and when to use it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to augment. The baseline score of 4 applies per the rubric for zero-parameter tools.
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 states the resource ('Status of Blankas') and enumerates the specific information it returns (issuer public key, free blanks left, spec and signer links). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like blankas_spec, but the status/info nature is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings.
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 instruction 'Call this first' provides an explicit usage context, indicating it should be invoked before other Blankas tools. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a status tool the first-call guidance is a clear and actionable rule.
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.