Latest confirmed events that touched an address, up to 8. Free.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"account": "<account>"
},
"name": "get_activity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Keeta address starting keeta_ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: only confirmed events, a maximum of 8 results, and no cost. However, it does not explain ordering, pagination, freshness, or what event types are included.
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 extremely short and front-loads the essential scope, limit, and cost information. No sentence or phrase is wasted.
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?
The tool is low-complexity and the sole parameter is fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the shape or fields of returned events. It is minimally adequate to call the tool, but incomplete for interpreting or relying on the result set.
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%, and the single account parameter is fully described as a Keeta address starting with keeta_. The description adds no parameter syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?
It states a specific resource and scope: latest confirmed events touching an address, capped at 8, free. It is clear enough to distinguish from account/balance/block-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with them.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account or other activity-related lookups. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'events that touched an address'.
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.