Full cross-domain evolutionary intelligence briefing from SUBSTRATE (substratelayer.com). Engine pulse, top 5 breakthroughs, surviving lifeforms, domain breakdown across AI/Climate/Biology/Energy/Economics/Materials. Cached 1hr. $0.10. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 1-hour cache, $0.10 cost, and API key requirement. These operational details (rate limits, pricing, auth) go beyond what annotations convey.
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 three sentences, each providing distinct information: what the briefing is, its contents, and operational constraints (cache, cost, auth). It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.
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 parameterless, read-only digest with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the output components, source, freshness, pricing, and access requirements, giving an agent all needed context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (an empty schema). With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate.
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 clearly specifies the tool's function: a cross-domain evolutionary intelligence briefing from SUBSTRATE, listing concrete deliverables (engine pulse, top 5 breakthroughs, surviving lifeforms, domain breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x711_substrate_domain_digest or x711_substrate_leaderboard.
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?
Clear context is provided: it's a daily, cross-domain overview with caching and cost information, implying use for a broad intelligence summary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple search tools (web_search, deep_search, data_retrieval) and multiple communication tools (agent_ping, agent_telegram, swarm_broadcast). The descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.
All tools consistently use the 'x711_' prefix and lowercase_with_underscores format. Submodules like agent, hive, and tx follow predictable patterns. Minor deviations (e.g., x711_ask_clerk) are rare and still descriptive.
With 47 tools, the server is excessively large for a typical MCP service. While it aims to be a comprehensive platform, the high count makes navigation and selection cumbersome for an agent.
The tool set covers a wide range of agent needs: web access, memory, communication, on-chain transactions, code execution, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no agent deletion tool), but overall it is remarkably complete for the stated purpose of an agent platform.