Fetch an address overview on the PoA network, defaulting to your own, to inspect account activity and status.
Explorer view of an address (defaults to your own).
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": "poa_explorer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the optional-address default but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what kind of data is returned, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool, though its brevity borders on under-specification.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what an 'explorer view' contains, how the address is interpreted, or when an agent should invoke this tool versus its many siblings.
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 0%, and the schema only defines an optional 'address' string|null with default null. The description adds useful semantic meaning by clarifying that the address defaults to the caller's own address, partially compensating for the schema gap, though it still does not describe the expected address format.
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 the resource ('an address') and the view type ('Explorer'), and notes the default to the caller's own address. However, it does not state a specific action or output, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like poa_status or poa_network_status, so the purpose remains vague.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The only usage hint is that the address argument defaults to the caller's own address, but the description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool over other poa_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.