Derive Molpha feedId

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that computation is local, requires no transaction or subscription, that the feed is created lazily on-chain at first settle, and that independent nodes must converge on a byte-identical value, which implies a deterministic algorithm. This is a rich behavioral disclosure beyond simple read/write hints.

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 compact and information-dense, covering purpose, formula, use cases, and determinism requirements in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description provides strong context for the main computation and use, but it omits the return value format, which is critical since there is no output schema. It also does not cover edge cases like invalid specs or how rejectNonDeterministic affects behavior. Given the nested apiConfig complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for full agent comprehension.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explains apiConfig and signaturesRequired via the formula 'feedId = keccak256(owner || apiConfigHash || signaturesRequired)', but the third parameter, rejectNonDeterministic, is never mentioned. It also does not explain the structure or required fields within apiConfig, leaving the agent to infer from the bare schema. This incomplete compensation for a low-coverage schema warrants a low score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Locally derive the feedId for a declarative spec (apiConfig + quorum)'. It uses a specific verb ('derive') and resource ('feedId'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing local derivation and the fact no transaction/subscription is required, contrasting with molpha_fetch_verified.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this to preview a feedId before molpha_fetch_verified, or to check what feedId a given spec resolves to for the current signer.' It also advises preferring settled/finalized data, giving important context about when relying on this derived value is appropriate vs. using verified data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.