Retrieve a recipient's cumulative distribution amount and Merkle proof for a given distribution ID. Verify eligibility or claim status using the recipient's address on Base.
Get one recipient cumulative amount and Merkle proof for a distribution. Costs $0.001 USDC via x402; a missing recipient is a free 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Distribution id returned by distribution_create | |
| address | Yes | Recipient address on Base |
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 burden and does disclose a non-obvious cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and a free 404 for missing recipients. However, it omits authorization requirements, rate limits, and response-shape details beyond naming the result contents.
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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the cost and free-404 behavior. No filler or repetition.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is nearly complete: it names the output concept, cost, and an error case, and the schema supplies parameter descriptions. It could be stronger with an explicit alternative or response format, but nothing essential is missing for a call.
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 baseline 3 applies; the schema already documents id and address. The description's 'recipient cumulative amount' adds minor context to address but does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 resource: getting one recipient's cumulative amount and Merkle proof for a distribution. The unique 'Merkle proof' deliverable distinguishes this tool from generic sibling getters like distribution_get.
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 choose this tool over distribution_get or distribution_create, and no alternatives are named. The usage context is only implied by the proof-specific wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.