List delegated agent keys for the authenticated wallet (address, label, expiry). Requires API credentials; use fetch_agents instead.
Deprecated: use fetch_agents. List the delegated agent keys registered for the authenticated wallet (address, label, expiry). Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that API credentials are required, marks the tool as deprecated, and describes the returned fields, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or other call constraints.
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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by scope, return fields, and auth requirement.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema deprecated list tool, the description is complete enough: it identifies the replacement, the required auth, and the returned fields. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: lists delegated agent keys for the authenticated wallet. It also names the return fields and explicitly distinguishes this from the replacement sibling `fetch_agents`.
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?
Begins with a clear deprecation notice and names the alternative tool `fetch_agents`, which tells the agent not to use this tool for new work. This is explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.