Step 2 of autonomous self-registration - no API key required. Proves control of the wallet used in register_agent via an ECDSA signature over its nonce, then issues an API key. Always free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes | ||
| wallet_address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it issues an API key, requires an ECDSA signature over a nonce, and is always free. This is transparent about the action and outcome.
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?
Two concise sentences. First sentence sets context and constraint. Second explains action and result. No wasted 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?
Completeness is high given it's a step in a process. Mentions the output (API key). Could optionally detail error scenarios, but it's adequate.
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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that signature proves control of wallet used in register_agent, adding context beyond parameter names. Both parameters are covered.
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?
Description explicitly states it is step 2 of autonomous self-registration, proving wallet control via ECDSA signature and issuing an API key. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_agent (step 1) and others.
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?
States 'no API key required' and 'Always free', providing clear context. Implicitly it is used after register_agent, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.
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.
