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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: escrow is derived server-side per (payer, gateway), non-existent escrow is normal and lazily created, and the balance is labeled 'advisory'. This goes beyond the simple 'Read' verb and helps agents understand edge cases.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides return data details, then gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (USDC ATA balance, committed amount, unsettled round count, quoted price) and covers the pre-first-round normal behavior for missing escrow. The only notable gap is the ambiguous parameter mapping, but for a single-parameter read tool, this is otherwise complete.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, signaturesRequired, but the description never mentions it explicitly. 'A given quorum' is a vague hint that likely maps to the parameter, but with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clearly explaining how the parameter controls the quorum. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Read' and names the resource ('x402 agent escrow') along with a specific secondary output ('next round's quoted price'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like molpha_get_latest or molpha_execute, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by stating 'Call before payment' and explaining the use case (checking if escrow is already funded or pre-funding out of band). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral transparency by clarifying that the feed account may not exist pre-settle and by distinguishing the attested valueKind from the unattested valueEncoding. It explicitly flags valueEncoding as unattested, which is critical for an agent to avoid over-trusting the output.

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 five sentences each deliver a distinct fact: purpose, input modes, missing-feed behavior, valueKind semantics, and valueEncoding semantics. No sentence is redundant or filler, achieving high information density without verbosity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields and subscription status, and explains edge-case behavior for uninitialized feeds. It even anticipates confusion around value encoding, making the tool self-contained for correct usage.

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?

Even though the schema only lists types, the description explains the semantic roles: feedId is a direct identifier, apiConfig + signaturesRequired are used for derivation. It also adds meaning to valueTransform by linking it to the reported valueEncoding field.

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 verb 'Read' immediately identifies this as an inspection tool for on-chain feed state, naming specific fields (last committed value, registryVersion, signaturesRequired). It also explicitly contrasts with the derivation tool by explaining the two ways to supply the feed identifier, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 directly instructs when to pass feedId versus when to use apiConfig + signaturesRequired, and references molpha_derive_feed for the derivation step. It also prepares the agent for the expected 'missing feed' condition, clarifying the normal lazy-creation lifecycle.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: the operation is permissionless, the owner key pays SOL fees, short hex fields are zero-padded server-side, and EVM/Starknet execution is deliberately excluded. It does not mention dryRun behavior or potential failure modes, but the disclosed traits go beyond what the schema alone would imply.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary action. Every clause adds substantive context—shapes, server-side padding, permissionlessness, fee payer, and out-of-scope blockchains—without being bloated or repetitive.

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 covers the main workflow and scope exclusions well, and sibling context helps orient the agent. However, it leaves the dryRun parameter unexplained and does not describe the output or return behavior, especially since there is no output schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 compensate. It does explain the accepted shapes for the result parameter and the zero-padding normalization, but it completely omits the dryRun parameter. With two parameters and one entirely unexplained, the description only partially covers the parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Submit a signed DataUpdate to the Solana feed via submit_data_update.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly declaring EVM/Starknet execution out of scope and pointing to molpha_verify, so it is clear what this tool does and does not do.

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 gives explicit use guidance: pass the output of molpha_fetch_verified through unmodified, both artifact and flat shapes are accepted, and EVM/Starknet users should use molpha_verify and call verify() themselves. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative named.

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

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.

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

The description clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Returns') and lists the scope of the response. With no annotations provided, this adequately communicates the behavioral nature, though it does not disclose error conditions or whether authentication is required. For a simple getter, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence inventories the return payload, and the second provides a clear action directive. No wasted words or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns and why to call it. It positions the tool relative to the sibling verification/execution tools, making the context complete for an agent.

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% for the single optional parameter (includeAbi), and the schema description already explains its meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Returns the current Molpha verification surface') and enumerates the exact contents (registryVersion, node set, endpoints, chains, signing scheme, x402 spend caps). It also distinguishes this capability-introspection tool from siblings by noting it should be called first to learn where to verify a signed result.

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 instruction 'Call first to learn where a signed result can be verified' provides clear context and ordering relative to verification workflows. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use, the guidance is unambiguous for an agent deciding to start with capability discovery.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by explaining that valueKind is the attested encoding of stored bytes and not a scale hint, and it warns that decimals are not attested on-chain. It could go further by describing the return payload shape or error behavior, but the caveats provided are valuable and non-obvious.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: the action, the valueKind clarification, and the pointer to describe_feed. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and adds important interpretative context about valueKind and decimals. It is slightly incomplete because it does not enumerate the return fields beyond valueKind, but for a simple get-latest operation it is largely sufficient.

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 0% and the description does not compensate: feedId is only restated as 'a Molpha feedId' with no explanation of how to obtain, format, or validate it. The valueKind discussion likely refers to output rather than the input parameter, so it does little to clarify the sole parameter.

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: 'Read the latest on-chain feed account for a Molpha feedId.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like molpha_describe_feed or molpha_fetch_verified by identifying the exact read operation and target.

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?

Usage guidance is implied by the name and the main action (read latest feed), and the description points to molpha_describe_feed when decimal/encoding provenance is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over fetch_verified or verify, or list exclusions beyond the decimal caveat.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool stops at calldata by design, the verifier is stateless, the agent executes verify() itself, and the server never submits a transaction or vouches for off-chain results. It also notes that short hex fields are zero-padded server-side, adding detailed behavior.

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 longer than minimal examples, but every sentence earns its place by providing design rationale, alternatives, and input semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into necessary context. Some slight redundancy exists between 'server never submits an EVM/Starknet transaction' and 'there is no EVM/Starknet execution path anywhere in this MCP server,' but overall it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, how inputs are obtained, what it does not do, and how to handle alternative chains (Solana). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning by stating that dataUpdate and signature come from molpha_fetch_verified verbatim and that short hex fields are zero-padded, clarifying input format expectations. However, the includeAbi parameter is not explained, leaving a minor gap for that parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Build the verifier address and call args for a signed DataUpdate on EVM or Starknet.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that for Solana, molpha_execute or molpha_fetch_verified should be used instead, and that this tool only produces calldata without executing a transaction.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states that for Solana, use molpha_execute or molpha_fetch_verified autoSubmit and read back with molpha_get_latest, and that there is no separate simulate-verify path. It also mentions accepting dataUpdate/signature from molpha_fetch_verified verbatim, implying a workflow order.

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