Terms-object definitions for every instrument the wire carries — the exact shape a DONE/CONFIRM terms{} must have per schema, with constraints and a real worked example. Read this before constructing a deal: DONE and CONFIRM must match byte-for-byte, so terms must be built to schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | return one schema (e.g. 'collar1', 'fra1'); omit for the full catalogue |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns definitions, constraints, and a worked example, implying a read-only lookup operation. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits are apparent for this simple tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance and reasoning. No redundant or superfluous content exists, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, why it's needed, and the importance of byte-for-byte matching. The mention of a 'real worked example' adds value, though a brief description of the return format would slightly improve completeness.
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 input schema already documents the single optional parameter 'schema' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it correctly aligns with the parameter's purpose. Baseline score of 3 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 states the tool returns 'Terms-object definitions for every instrument the wire carries', specifying the exact shape for DONE/CONFIRM terms with constraints and a worked example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'post_axe' or 'send_call' which are action-oriented, and 'spec' which likely serves a different purpose.
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 description explicitly advises 'Read this before constructing a deal' and explains why through byte-for-byte matching. While it doesn't list when not to use the tool or specific alternatives, the strong contextual guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.