sa-ecosystem-node

Claim status

claim_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads claim state for a listing identity or all claims in the pinned hub, showing whether player, guild, or business claims are active based on key ownership, curator countersign, and chain order.

Instructions

Read claim state for one listing identity, or for every claim in the pinned hub. A player claim is active only when the claimant wallet is a current key on the named player profile. A guild or business claim is active only after curators countersign. The first eligible claim in chain order wins unless curators resolve or revoke it. X and Discord notes are self-attested, unverified, unless a trusted verifier attestation is current. A raw handle is included only when the claim opts in. Read-only. This does not move money.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "claim_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identity`	No	A listing id, a guild name, or an identity key such as id:booth or guild:east-hall. Omit it to list every claim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses genuinely useful semantics: what makes a claim active (current wallet key for player claims, curator countersignature for guild/business claims), the chain-order precedence rule, and that X/Discord notes are unverified self-attestations unless a trusted verifier is current. The 'Read-only. This does not move money.' line is partly redundant with the annotations but reinforces the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the following sentences each carry a distinct rule (activity, precedence, attestation trust, handle opt-in). The trailing 'Read-only. This does not move money.' is two short fragments that partly restate the annotations and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by explaining what 'claim state' means and under which conditions it counts as active, plus the caveat that handles only appear on opt-in. It does not address result volume or pagination when enumerating every claim, which is a minor gap for a single-optional-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the accepted identity forms and the omit-to-list-everything behavior. The description adds only the framing of 'one listing identity' versus 'every claim in the pinned hub' and the scoping notion of a pinned hub, so the schema still carries most of the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Read claim state') and precise resource scope (one listing identity, or every claim in the pinned hub), which distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools that enumerate listings rather than claims.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states both modes of use: supply an identity to read one claim, or omit it to enumerate every claim. What is missing is any explicit routing advice against alternatives such as list_listings or search_hub, so the agent must infer that this is the only claims-oriented tool.

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