Retrieve an audit log of memory deletions with IDs, timestamps, and reasons, excluding deleted content.
[Wicked Memory] Your deletion audit log (ids, times, reasons; never content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | From memory_prepare (single use). | |
| wallet | Yes | Your agent's 0x wallet address. | |
| signature | Yes | Your wallet's signature over memory_prepare's message_to_sign. | |
| timestamp | Yes | From memory_prepare. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the log never contains content, only metadata. However, it omits that this is a read-only operation, the authentication/signature requirement implied by the wallet/nonce/signature params, and any pagination or scope limits.
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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and then its contents. No filler, though it is brief enough that it could have afforded one clause of usage guidance.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (ids, times, reasons, never content), and the auth parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit usage routing and the read-only characterization.
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%, and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail; 'ids, times, reasons' describes return values rather than inputs.
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 a specific resource ('deletion audit log') and enumerates its contents (ids, times, reasons; never content), which is enough to distinguish it from the general memory_history sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with memory_history or memory_delete, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related memory_delete/memory_history tools. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart of deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.