Reports how on-chain writes work on this server: your own wallet sends them, the host signer does not
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": "veya_writes_status"
}
}| 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, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the caller's own wallet signs on-chain writes, not a host signer. That is real auth context an agent could not infer otherwise. It says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or whether it needs a connected wallet to answer.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key distinction (your wallet signs, host signer does not) lands immediately. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but nothing in it 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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not say what form the answer takes, such as plain text guidance versus a wallet/signer capability object. For a trivial no-parameter informational tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return surface.
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 is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies; the description is silent on inputs because there are none.
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 resource, how on-chain writes work on this server, but the verb 'Reports' leaves it ambiguous whether this returns live status about pending writes or static documentation about signing semantics. The tool name (writes_status) leans toward the former while the description describes the latter, and neither resolves the ambiguity against siblings such as veya_account or veya_verify_transaction.
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 an agent should call this versus any of the ~50 sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The one piece of routing information, that writes are signed by the caller's wallet, is framed as context rather than as a reason to call the tool.
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.