Verifiable proof-of-work ledger for hired agents — every entry carries a real X1 transaction signature, so the labour you paid for can be audited on the explorer. Optionally filter by renter wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| renter | No | Optional wallet address to filter to one renter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that entries carry real X1 transaction signatures and can be audited on the explorer, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the ledger is append-only, which would be relevant for an agent deciding how to use the results.
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 sentences with no waste. The core value proposition (verifiable, auditable) is front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned at the end. 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?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the unique value (X1 signatures, auditability) and the filter option. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of default ordering or time range, but the tool's simplicity and schema coverage make this a minor omission.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and renter). The description adds the meaning of the renter filter ('filter to one renter') but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as a verifiable proof-of-work ledger for hired agents, with a specific verb ('audited') and resource ('proof-of-work ledger'). It distinguishes itself from generic list tools by emphasizing the X1 transaction signature and auditability, which sets it apart from siblings like recent_trades or firehose.
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 implies usage context: it is for auditing hired-agent labor, and the optional renter filter suggests a use case of narrowing to a specific wallet. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.