Fetch the live validation parameters for one pool class, returning every parameter's name, semantics, and a sha256 commitment, with five anti-manipulation values withheld on a fixed lag. Use this when the user asks how a Trial or Full round is currently configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_class | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a sha256 commitment and withholds five anti-manipulation values on a fixed lag. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not explain the lag mechanism.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence covers function and return content; the second adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
With one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It does not detail error cases or the exact meaning of H/M, but the context is adequate for a simple read-only tool.
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 schema only provides an enum of H/M with no descriptions. The description compensates by linking the pool class to 'Trial or Full round' configuration, implying what the parameter selects. Though it does not explicitly map H/M to Trial/Full, it adds meaningful context for a single parameter with zero schema coverage.
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 fetches live validation parameters for one pool class, specifying the content returned (names, semantics, sha256 commitment) and the key detail of withheld values. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on validation parameters for Trial/Full rounds.
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 says to use this when the user asks how a Trial or Full round is currently configured, providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from sibling tools.
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 resource or action: fetching challenge, corpus, issue, ledger, market, params, key, settlement, solution; listing issues, tasks, solutions; preparing and submitting work; and describing the protocol. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_*, list_*, prepare_*, submit_*, and describe_*. The pattern is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 15 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a domain that requires both read and write capabilities. Each tool contributes meaningfully without redundancy, and the count falls within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: understanding the write protocol, reading all relevant data (issues, markets, ledger, settlements, solutions, params), preparing work entries, and submitting them. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for an agent to accomplish its goals.