register_agentCreate or reuse a local SCDO agent identity and start signed heartbeats to the Agent Ledger. The private key stays in your local data directory.
Create (or reuse) a local SCDO agent identity as a bookkeeping node and start signed heartbeats to the Agent Ledger. The key is created and kept in the local data dir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| payout | No | ||
| heartbeats | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real side effects: a key is generated and stored in the local data dir, and signed heartbeats begin flowing to the Agent Ledger. It omits whether a second call overwrites an existing identity, whether heartbeats can be suppressed, and what authorization the Agent Ledger requires. Useful but incomplete for a state-mutating identity tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key-storage fact appended as a secondary clause. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
Without annotations, an output schema, or any parameter documentation, the description is the only information source, and it leaves the four parameters, the response shape, and the auth/prerequisite story uncovered. For a tool that creates persistent identity and network heartbeats, that is thin.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters and does not. 'name' is implied by the identity concept and 'heartbeats' loosely maps to 'start signed heartbeats', but 'label' and 'payout' are never mentioned, leaving payout semantics (an address? a percentage?) entirely undefined.
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 states a concrete verb and resource: create (or reuse) a local SCDO agent identity and start signed heartbeats to the Agent Ledger. That is specific enough to separate it from read-only siblings like ledger_list_agents or ledger_get_agent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named ledger_registration sibling, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The parenthetical 'or reuse' hints at idempotency but never says when a caller should register a new agent versus querying an existing one via ledger_get_agent/ledger_list_agents, nor how it relates to ledger_registration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.