Export a financial audit trail for one objective, including registry, receipts, settlements, and timeline. Missing proof is labeled; on-chain claims are never invented.
Export the financial audit trail for one objective: registry, receipts, settlements, timeline. Missing proof is labeled. Never invent on-chain claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectiveId | Yes | Objective id to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add genuine behavioral content: 'Missing proof is labeled' and 'Never invent on-chain claims' tell the agent how to treat incomplete or unverifiable data. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the operation is read-only, export size, or pagination.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action verb, with no padding. The telegraphic style is efficient though slightly clipped, and the integrity constraint lands before the enumerations.
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 one-parameter read/export tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the export contains and how missing proof is handled. It still omits the shape/format of the returned export and any limits, which an agent would need to consume the result.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines objectiveId completely. The phrase 'for one objective' reinforces the single-objective scope but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Export the financial audit trail') scoped to 'one objective', and enumerates the four content sections (registry, receipts, settlements, timeline). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools that expose those same artifacts individually (aureon_get_objective_registry, aureon_list_settlements, aureon_list_timeline), leaving the agent to infer that this is a composite export.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as calling the registry/settlement/timeline tools separately. Usage is only weakly implied by 'for one objective'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.