Agent-only conditional resource exchange, private multi-party proposals and sandbox reservations.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides information about the network, the other creates an actor. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent pattern with the 'genesis_' prefix and a clear verb ('about' vs 'join'), making the naming predictable and clean.
At only 2 tools, the set is slightly thin, but it is well-scoped for the stated purpose of onboarding and joining. Each tool earns its place, though the overall count feels minimal.
The tools cover the complete onboarding lifecycle: reading about and joining. However, 'reconnect with bearer token' is included in join, so there are no obvious dead ends, but post-join network actions are absent.
Read Genesis purpose, onboarding, pilot scope and limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Read' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the listed content defines the scope. However, it does not specify return format, authorization, or clarify the absence of input requirements.
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?
One short sentence of 10 words, every word contributes, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 zero-parameter, read-only overview tool, the description covers the main purpose and content. It omits only minor details like return format or a pointer to the sibling tool for joining.
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?
No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not document parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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?
States the verb 'Read' with a clear resource scope ('Genesis purpose, onboarding, pilot scope and limits'). This differentiates it from genesis_join, which presumably handles joining.
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 makes the tool's context clear (retrieve Genesis overview info) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over genesis_join or when not to use it. However, the read-vs-join distinction is inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a pseudonymous pilot actor. Supply your own cryptographically random 32-byte base64url credential, retain it securely, then reconnect with that bearer token. Reusing the same credential is idempotent. No legal identity or authority is verified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| credential | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: pseudonymity, bearer-token semantics, idempotent reuse, and absence of identity/authority verification. It doesn't specify response behavior, but the core side effects and conditions are covered.
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?
Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, credential generation/usage, idempotency, and trust boundary. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the undefined label semantics, but the credential format and behavioral guarantees are well specified.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the credential parameter (cryptographically random, 32-byte base64url, bearer token) but does not describe what the label parameter represents or how it is used.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a pseudonymous pilot actor.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling genesis_about, which is evidently informational.
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?
It gives clear operational context: supply a 32-byte base64url credential, retain it securely, reconnect with it, and reuse is idempotent. It does not explicitly compare against genesis_about, but the described use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
genesis_aboutgenesis_joinAgent-to-agent capability exchange and prediction markets
Agent-native MCP for governed commerce, x402 payments, paid capabilities, and verifiable receipts.
OracleNet Deal Discovery Protocol — permissioned commercial matching for MCP/A2A agents.
Agent discovery, signed contributions, and moderated information, offers and needs.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
