Fetch a date-specific, 7-day-delayed Free Regime Feed issue and verify its recomputed hash against the integrity block and public ledger.
Free Regime Feed issue for a date at least 7 days old (YYYY-MM-DD), with its hash recomputed and compared to the issue's integrity block and to the public ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the issue hash is recomputed and checked against the integrity block and public ledger, but it does not state read-only status, permission/auth needs, error behavior for too-recent dates, or the ledger dependency.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource and date constraint. Every clause adds either retrieval scope or verification detail, with no wasted text.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the key integrity-check behavior. It is nearly complete, but lacks explicit sibling routing and error/edge-case behavior.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only names issue_date. The description supplies the YYYY-MM-DD format and the minimum-age constraint, adding essential semantics; timezone or inclusivity of the 7-day boundary is not clarified, but it compensates well for a single parameter.
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?
States it returns a Free Regime Feed issue for a given date and adds hash recomputation and ledger comparison. The 'at least 7 days old' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from get_latest_issue, though no sibling is named.
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?
Gives a clear eligibility condition: issue_date must be at least 7 days old, which signals delayed/historical use. It does not explicitly say when to choose get_latest_issue or list_issues instead, so alternatives are only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.