Retrieve the wallet bound to the issued API key or current Bearer session.
Return the wallet bound to the issued API key or current Bearer session
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "aureon_me"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 it does disclose a real behavioral trait: identity is derived from either an issued API key or the current Bearer session. It does not say what happens when neither is present (error vs. empty), whether the call is read-only, or whether it has side effects on the session.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifying condition (API key vs. Bearer session) comes immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return contract; 'the wallet' is left ambiguous (address string vs. wallet object vs. portfolio summary). For a zero-parameter identity tool this is close to adequate, but an agent cannot predict the response shape or the unauthenticated case.
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 schema provides nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed beyond the auth-context note already given.
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 ('Return') and resource ('the wallet bound to the issued API key or current Bearer session'), which is meaningfully more specific than a tautology. It implicitly distinguishes itself from identity-adjacent siblings like aureon_verify_wallet and aureon_get_auth_nonce, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this resolves 'who am I' for the current session. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing it over aureon_verify_wallet, aureon_get_auth_nonce, or aureon_dev_login.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.