sealed_recordForward signed pre-outcome calls, then report hits and misses together with decided counts and the ledger root for market-liquidity records.
Forward calls sealed/signed before outcomes: hits, misses, decided counts, ledger root. Report hits and misses together.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (hits, misses, decided counts, ledger root) is genuinely useful added context, but it says nothing about scope, freshness, or whether the record is per-account or global.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the content fields are front-loaded. The wording is dense to the point of being cryptic ('Forward calls sealed/signed before outcomes'), which costs a little clarity but not length.
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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. However, it leaves unresolved what a 'forward call' is, the scope of the ledger root, and when the sealed snapshot is valid, which an agent needs in order to use the result 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameters to explain and correctly does not fabricate any.
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 identifies the resource (a sealed record of forward calls signed before outcomes) and its contents (hits, misses, decided counts, ledger root), but the phrasing 'Forward calls sealed/signed before outcomes' is a fragment with no clean verb+object, so an agent cannot state in one sentence what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from the finance-oriented siblings, but only vaguely.
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 directive is 'Report hits and misses together,' which is an output-presentation note rather than a when-to-use rule. No alternative tool is named, no precondition (e.g., after sealing, before settlement) is given, and no exclusion is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.