v1_research_attested_briefGenerate an attested research brief from a topic and context with configurable depth; returns the brief with its on-chain settlement transaction hash after x402 payment.
Attested Brief
Remote route: POST /v1/research/attested-brief (2.00 USD x402/base/usdc on eip155:8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | brief | |
| topic | No | ||
| context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful operational context: it is a remote POST route costing 2.00 USD via x402/base/usdc on eip155:8453. It still does not explain payment/auth flow or what the operation actually produces.
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 description is short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The title is repeated and the only substantive sentence is the route/payment line, so it does not front-load the tool's actual purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a three-parameter research tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description omits what the tool does, how topic/context/depth are used, and when to choose it.
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 description provides no information about depth, topic, or context. With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.
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 essentially restates the title 'Attested Brief' and adds only the HTTP route. It does not state a specific verb or explain what an attested brief is, so the agent must infer purpose from the tool name and route path.
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 exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as v1_signed_research or v1_finance_attested_evidence. The route and price are stated, but not the conditions under which this tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.