Retrieve the public record of the first SOC-to-BTC atomic settlement for verification, enabling you to confirm the transaction proof and trust anchor on the sovereign rail.
Public record of the first SOC<->BTC atomic settlement
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'public record' weakly implies a read-only, safe operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return behavior, immutability, or access characteristics.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key concept 'public record'. It is concise, though it sacrifices some helpful detail for brevity.
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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the core context—what record is exposed—but does not explicitly state the action or return value. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent to infer that calling the tool returns the mentioned record.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantics by identifying the exact fixed record that the no-argument call accesses, making the absence of inputs meaningful.
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 identifies a specific resource—the public record of the first SOC<->BTC atomic settlement—which distinguishes it from vague generic names, but it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return'. An agent can infer the tool exposes this record, but not precisely what calling it does.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use proof_record versus siblings like verify_settlement or oracle, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.