chain_statusReport the chain Agoreum settles on and whether it is a test network. Call this before anything involving payment. Settlement is on Base, a live network. The USDC here is real money and transfers are irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notice | Yes | ||
| network | Yes | ||
| chain_id | Yes | ||
| is_testnet | Yes | ||
| settlement_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "chain_id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "is_testnet": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "network": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "notice": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "settlement_token": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "chain_id",
+ "is_testnet",
+ "network",
+ "notice",
+ "settlement_token"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond them: settlement is on Base, a live network, and USDC transfers there are irreversible. That warning is framed as environment facts rather than this tool's own behavior, so it is slightly off-target for a read-only status check but not misleading.
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?
There are four short sentences, and they are front-loaded: the purpose comes first, then the trigger, then the environment facts. 'Settlement is on Base, a live network' effectively pre-answers the tool's own return value, a mild redundancy, but the safety framing 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out. The description covers purpose, the precondition for calling, and the stakes involved; only minor operational details, such as the fact that the call is instant and argument-free, are left implicit.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the inputs. The absence of a required input is implied by the description's simple reporting language, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb and two concrete outputs: the settlement chain and whether it is a test network. Because the sibling tools (get_agent, list_open_requests, verify_document, etc.) cover unrelated domains, no sibling disambiguation is needed, and the scope is unambiguous.
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 gives an explicit trigger for when to call the tool: 'Call this before anything involving payment.' That state-and-condition framing tells an agent exactly when this tool is a prerequisite, rather than leaving usage to inference.
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.