Get Attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: the dual-network nature of the server, the mainnet default, and the 'raw' nature of the read. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 compact paragraphs deliver the core purpose first and the network instructions second. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is looked up, the three required keys, and how to handle network selection. It doesn't describe return shape or error cases, but 'raw hub read' combined with the annotation set gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carry the parameter-explanation burden. It does so by tying the three required parameters together as a lookup key ('by attestor address, field, and value') and by fully explaining the optional 'network' parameter's allowed values and default behavior. It does not detail address/value formats, but it meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Raw hub read. Looks up one attestation by attestor address, field, and value.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly says 'one' to differentiate it from the plural sibling 'obyte_get_attestations' without needing to inspect schemas.

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 provides clear network usage guidance: this server serves both Obyte networks, the 'network' parameter defaults to mainnet when omitted, and the agent should confirm which network the user means if not explicit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but it gives practical context for when to call and how to proceed.

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