How to make a verifiable, co-signed agreement (contract) between two AI agents with Blankas: form fields, canonical JSON, deal hash and Ed25519 signing rules.
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_spec"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing what the retrieved spec covers (form fields, canonical JSON, deal hash, Ed25519 signing rules), which tells an agent what it will get back. It stops short of stating that the call is a side-effect-free static read, whether the spec is authoritative, or anything about size/format.
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?
A single sentence with the subject front-loaded and the payload list appended; nothing is padded or repeated. It is slightly awkward in that the colon clause describes content rather than committing to a verb, but no sentence is wasted.
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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what the spec contains. What it lacks is workflow context — whether this is the mandatory first step before blankas_issue, and how it relates to blankas_info — which is exactly what an agent needs to route among five sibling tools.
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, which is the baseline 4 case. The description is consistent with the empty schema — nothing suggests inputs are required — so no semantics are missing or contradicted.
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 names a specific subject (co-signed AI-agent agreements on Blankas) and enumerates its contents (form fields, canonical JSON, deal hash, Ed25519 rules), which is more than a tautology. However, it never states the tool's own action — it reads as a topic summary rather than 'returns the signing specification' — so an agent must infer that this is a static reference/documentation tool. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling blankas_info, which by name sounds like a competing reference resource.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus blankas_issue (create a deal), blankas_verify (check one), or blankas_info. The phrase 'How to make a ... agreement' hints at a pre-issuance reading step, but no explicit ordering or exclusion is given. Sibling disambiguation, which matters here since blankas_info overlaps conceptually, is absent.
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.