Trace any minter address across the Dysnomia ecosystem to check terraforming status, linked tokens, contract balances, and apparition progression.
Trace a minter address across the Dysnomia ecosystem — check its terraforming status, linked tokens, balances in each core contract, and progression toward apparition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minter_address | Yes | The minter address to trace (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what it checks but does not explicitly say whether it is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, or if it requires special permissions. The word 'trace' implies observation, but this is not explicit. There is no mention of performance, data volume, or any potential cost.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key checks. It contains no fluff, is easy to scan, and every phrase adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema. The description lists what it checks but does not specify the return format or whether it returns a summary, detailed report, or a list. For a trace tool, this is a notable gap, but the low complexity (1 param) mitigates it. It is adequate but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 action (trace) and the resource (a minter address), and enumerates the specific aspects it checks (terraforming status, linked tokens, balances, progression). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_contract_state or map_relationships, which target different concerns.
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 implicitly communicates when to use it (when you need to trace a minter address across the ecosystem). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, lacking exclusionary guidance. The context is clear but no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.