Verify a wallet signature, authenticate the MCP session, and store the Bearer token for later Aureon tools.
Verify a wallet signature and store the Bearer session for later tools in this MCP process
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address | |
| message | Yes | Signed message from get_auth_nonce | |
| signature | Yes | Wallet signature hex | |
| inviteCode | No | Invite code if required on first login |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the persistent side effect of storing a Bearer session for subsequent tools, but does not cover failure behavior, session lifetime, or auth requirements.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and side effect, with no wasted words.
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 an auth-primitive tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key session-storage behavior but omits failure semantics and the prerequisite relationship with aureon_get_auth_nonce, leaving some operational context to the schema.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making a baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('wallet signature'), plus the side effect of storing a Bearer session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like aureon_get_auth_nonce and aureon_logout.
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?
It implies usage as an authentication prerequisite by noting the stored session is 'for later tools in this MCP process,' but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as aureon_dev_login or what happens if verification fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.