get_lift_evidence_contractReturn the stable configuration-scoped public-card schema and empty public index; no results are asserted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that the public index is empty and no results are asserted. No contradictions.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (schema and empty index) and behavioral constraints. Nothing 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?
No parameters exist, so the description carries no burden there. However, it adds value by describing what the return output contains (schema and empty index), which is useful for an agent.
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 returns a specific resource: the stable configuration-scoped public-card schema and empty public index. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_afmr or lookup_failure_mode. No tautology.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_reputation_attestation_contract and lookup_failure_mode, explicit usage hints would help but are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one returns canonical AFMR specs, two return specific contracts (lift evidence and reputation attestation), and one looks up failure modes. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: discover_afmr, get_lift_evidence_contract, get_reputation_attestation_contract, lookup_failure_mode. No deviations or mixed conventions.
Four tools are well-scoped for a discovery service. Each tool earns its place, covering key functions without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers the main aspects of AFMR discovery: general specs, two key contracts, and failure mode lookup. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.