master_pubkey

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description labels the tool as 'Read-only,' indicating no state changes. It also describes the condition (found=false) for unresolved keys. Missing detail on what the successful response contains beyond the key itself, but the read-only safety is clear.

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 four focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It uses precise terminology without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: derivation logic, use case, edge case, and safety.

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?

Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key condition (found=false). However, it does not describe the return format or the effect of the network parameter. For the complexity level, it lacks full completeness.

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%, yet the description adds no details about the parameters. The account parameter is implied but not named, and the network parameter is completely omitted. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool derives the master public key from the ledger using a specific method (self-originated tx pubkey matching AccountID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_info by focusing on a specific cryptographic key derivation.

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Needed to configure a qkey_guard hook (its MPK param).' It also mentions when it returns found=false, indirectly guiding against use when the key hasn't signed. However, it lacks explicit alternative tool comparisons or when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.