Attests prompt safety, checks target URLs for threats, and verifies token contracts in one call for autonomous AI agent workflows.
Cryptographic prompt-safety + URL threat + token contract verification bundle for autonomous AI agent workflows. Price: 0.02 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_url | No | Target URL | |
| prompt_text | Yes | Prompt text to attest | |
| token_address | No | Token contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a cost signal ('0.02 USDC on Base'), which is genuinely useful context, but it omits everything else: whether it is read-only, what auth/wallet it needs, how the three sub-checks are combined, and what the response looks like.
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 functional scope front-loaded and the price appended. Every clause carries information, though the price sentence could have been folded in more economically.
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 be self-sufficient, yet it says nothing about the merged return format of a three-part bundle or the payment/auth mechanics implied by the USDC price. An agent cannot predict what it will receive or what a call requires.
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 100%, so the three parameters are already documented. The description implicitly maps each parameter to one of the three checks but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description names three concrete verification functions (prompt-safety, URL threat, token contract) and frames the tool as a bundle, which is more specific than a generic 'security check'. It does not differentiate from the sibling security_prompt_firewall, which likely overlaps on the prompt-safety portion, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only usage context is the vague phrase 'for autonomous AI agent workflows'. There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like security_prompt_firewall or security_x402_endpoint_verifier that cover subsets of the same ground.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.