Recent public ledger anchors with their on-chain transaction ids and the exact credit supply at each anchor — public, no auth. Independently checkable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eras | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| anchors | No | ||
| coverage | No | ||
| hash_format | No | ||
| chain_semantics | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "ledger_verify — public anchor list. `anchors` left opaque (per-anchor records).",
+ "properties": {
+ "anchors": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Anchors"
+ },
+ "chain_semantics": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Chain Semantics"
+ },
+ "coverage": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Coverage"
+ },
+ "eras": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Eras"
+ },
+ "hash_format": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Hash Format"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Total"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "LedgerVerifyOut",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is public, requires no auth, and is independently checkable, which are useful behavioral traits. It doesn't mention read-only status, but for a zero-parameter verification tool this is implicitly read-only; the disclosed traits add value beyond the name.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key traits (public, no auth, independently checkable) with no waste. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the auth requirement, and verifiability. The output schema covers the return structure, so nothing essential 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 is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters; a baseline of 4 applies since the description correctly omits irrelevant 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?
The description states exactly what the tool returns: recent public ledger anchors with transaction IDs and credit supply. It is specific and unambiguous, and while it doesn't name siblings, the content is distinct enough to avoid confusion with other ledger-related 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 notes that it is public and requires no auth, which implies when it can be used, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternative tools like verify_proof or balance_proof. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.