Fetch verified Molpha data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses the payment fallback behavior ("auto" uses subscription then falls back to x402), autoSubmit side effects (honours dryRun, daily cap, still returns artifact on failed submit), and warns not to consume `value` alone. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, trust warning, per-chain behavior, payment options, and feedId derivation. It is front-loaded with the main function, then layers in constraints and alternatives without redundancy.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation context: return type (signed payload + verifier args), per-chain settlement paths, payment modes, and feedId fallback. It does not detail error cases or every parameter's effect, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is low (11%), so the description must compensate. It does for key parameters: payment enum values are fully explained, feedId derivation is described, and autoSubmit's requirement ("Requires 'solana' in chains") is stated. However, several parameters like dryRun, maxAge, encryptSecrets, and signaturesRequired (beyond feedId mention) receive no semantic explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Trigger a signing round for a feed and return the self-contained signed payload PLUS prebuilt verifier arguments for each requested chain." This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like molpha_verify (execution) and molpha_get_latest (read-only data).

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 explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it names molpha_execute and molpha_verify, clarifies that only the Solana leg can be settled from this server, and says evm/starknet return contract-ready calldata only. It also references molpha_derive_feed for feedId derivation, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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