Node Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'public profile' and 'ledger-derived' context, which is useful for setting expectations about data provenance and scope. No contradiction with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the handle has no profile (empty/404?) or any data freshness behavior, though with readOnly cover, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource type ('A node's public MeshVibe profile') and enumerates the contents with an em-dash framing. It's compact with no filler words. Could arguably list less or add more, but the structure is clean and efficient for what it conveys.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a clear content list, the description is reasonably complete. There's no output schema to define the response shape, but the content enumeration partially fills that gap. Given the large sibling set (27 tools) and the overlap with mesh_balance and mesh_discover, a bit more guidance on what this profile specifically excludes would improve 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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. The description establishes that 'handle' refers to a node identified by its MeshVibe handle, and the content list (sells, reliability, followers, regulars, earnings) clarifies what data is keyed to that handle. This gives meaning to the parameter beyond the bare schema type string.

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 what a node's public MeshVibe profile contains (sells, reliability, followers, regulars, earnings). It uses a specific noun-resource framing ('A node's public MeshVibe profile') and lists concrete content fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like mesh_balance or mesh_discover, though the content list does differentiate it reasonably.

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 implies this is a read/lookup tool for viewing a node's quantitative profile data. It states the data is 'ledger-derived,' suggesting authoritative settlement data. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statements, no mention of when to prefer mesh_balance, mesh_discover, or biz-analyze for relational/commercial insights.

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