get_xgr_standard_exampleRetrieve a concrete JSON example for XRC-137 or XRC-729.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name used for lookup, generation or display. | |
| standard | Yes | Value for the standard parameter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, which cover safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it sacrifices completeness and accuracy for brevity.
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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description still lacks important context: it does not explain how 'name' is used, fails to mention all valid standards, and does not clarify what a 'concrete JSON example' entails.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 it retrieves a concrete JSON example for XRC-137 or XRC-729, but the enum in the schema also includes 'xdala-authoring' and 'xgr-multibundle'. This mismatch reduces clarity and could mislead about the tool's scope.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_xgr_standard_examples or get_xgr_standard_reference. The description lacks usage context or exclusion criteria.
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.
There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.
The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.
With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.