aux_rwa_receipt_verifyVerify an AUX RWA receipt's exact ES256 signature binding, expiry, and current stored status. Verification proves AUX receipt integrity, not investment merit or authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| compact_jws | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what verification checks (ES256 signature binding, expiry, stored status) and by clarifying the limits of what verification proves.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core verification scope is front-loaded, and the caveat about investment merit and authorization is a necessary, efficient addition.
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 no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, so the description carries a heavy interpretive burden. It clearly states what is verified and what the result does not mean, but it leaves parameter construction and verification outcome semantics unspecified.
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 schema provides 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the required formats or roles of `receipt` and `compact_jws`. The phrase 'ES256 signature binding' hints that `compact_jws` is the signed token, but no guidance is given for constructing the `receipt` object or relating it to the JWS.
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 names a specific verb and resource: verify an AUX RWA receipt's exact ES256 signature binding, expiry, and current stored status. It also distinguishes the tool from evidence-evaluation or authorization tools by explicitly stating it proves integrity, not investment merit or authorization.
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 calling context is implied: use this tool when an AUX RWA receipt's signature, expiry, or stored status needs verification. It explicitly says the result does not establish investment merit or authorization, but it does not name sibling tools or state when to prefer aux_evidence_evaluate or the preflight tools.
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 targets a distinct domain or lifecycle step, and descriptions clearly separate capability discovery from evaluation and verification. The two evaluation-like tools (aux_evidence_evaluate and aux_transaction_preflight) could be confused at a glance, but their scenarios are explicitly differentiated.
All names use the aux_ prefix with snake_case, which is a consistent and readable pattern. There is minor inconsistency in whether the final token is a verb (evaluate, verify, start, continue) or a noun (capabilities, preflight, evidence), but the overall structure is predictable.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place: three capability discovery tools, several scenario-specific preflight evaluators, a three-step RWA dialogue flow, and a receipt verifier. Nothing feels redundant or bloated.
The surface covers discovery, evaluation, continuation, and verification across multiple financial evidence domains, including a full dialogue lifecycle for RWA actions. Minor gaps exist, such as no general status/history endpoint for past preflights, but the core workflows are complete and operational.