Look up QING territory data by territory ID or owner address to retrieve ownership, state, and metadata for verification and exploration.
Look up QING territory data — ownership, state, metadata. Can query by territory ID or by owner address to find all their territories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| territory_id | No | Numeric territory/token ID to look up | |
| owner_address | No | Address to check QING holdings for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or have side effects. It also does not mention any auth, rate limits, or edge-case behaviors. The implication is clear, but a stronger declaration would have been more transparent.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing the query options. There is no fluff, and every clause adds value. It is easy to scan and immediately understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.
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 simple lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and query modes. However, it does not specify what happens if both parameters are provided (e.g., is it an OR or AND condition) or if no parameters are given, nor does it mention pagination or result limits. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, but they would be useful for an agent to know.
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 100% with descriptive parameter names, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the two query modes and that owner_address returns multiple territories. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'check holdings' description and clarifies the relationship between the parameters, which helps the agent decide which one to supply.
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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a clear resource ('QING territory data'), and enumerates the aspects returned (ownership, state, metadata). It also names the two query modes (by territory ID or by owner address), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle different functions like debugging or tracing. No ambiguity exists.
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 explains the two ways to use the tool (by territory ID or by owner address) and clarifies that owner address returns all territories for that owner. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given that none of the siblings overlap with this querying task, the implicit usage context is sufficient but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.