Fetch real-time edge-parsed visual detection data from a DePIN node feed by node ID, returning detected objects, bounding boxes, confidence scores, environmental state, and geolocation.
Fetch real-time edge-parsed visual detection data from a physical DePIN node feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | The DePIN node ID to query. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' and 'real-time' imply a read against a live source, but it says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, whether results are a snapshot or stream, freshness windows, or pagination.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the terseness comes at the cost of missing detail rather than from genuine compression.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape, but it never says what fields a detection record contains, what the freshness or time-window semantics of 'real-time' are, or what an empty result means. An agent can call it but cannot anticipate the response.
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 100% and the sole parameter (node_id) is already documented in the schema as 'The DePIN node ID to query.' The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('real-time edge-parsed visual detection data from a physical DePIN node feed'), which is enough to distinguish it from nothing since there are no siblings. The resource noun is jargon-heavy ('edge-parsed', 'DePIN node feed') and never grounds what a detection datum actually is, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (none exist as siblings). The single word 'real-time' hints at a freshness use case but the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.