List Webhooks
list_webhooksList all registered webhooks for a wallet address.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet address to list webhooks for |
list_webhooksList all registered webhooks for a wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet address to list webhooks for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (registered vs all webhooks), but no additional disclosure beyond annotations is needed or provided.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and scope with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a list of registered webhooks for the given wallet address.
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 the walletAddress parameter fully. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks') with a clear scope ('for a wallet address'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook and register_webhook by clearly stating the listing action.
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 clear context that this is for listing webhooks for a wallet address, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tool names (delete_webhook, register_webhook) imply contrasts, but the description itself offers no usage guidance.
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.