Retrieve the immutable proof record for a verified claim. Includes the original claim, verification evidence, verifier identity, and a SHA-256 proof hash for tamper detection. This is the 'proof' in 'From Prompt to Proof'. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes | UUID of the claim to get proof for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the proof record is immutable, includes a SHA-256 hash for tamper detection, and requires authentication. This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about security and integrity.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value: the resource, the included contents, product tie-in, and the authentication note. No filler or redundancy.
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 read-only operation with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the prerequisite (verified claim), what the proof record contains, and the authentication requirement, so an agent can correctly invoke the tool.
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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (claim_id) with a clear description ('UUID of the claim to get proof for'). The description adds only minor context ('verified claim') but does not change parameter semantics. 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 opens with 'Retrieve the immutable proof record for a verified claim' – a specific verb plus resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like thinkneo_verify_claim or thinkneo_register_claim by focusing on retrieval of an already-verified claim's proof, and adds context with 'From Prompt to Proof'.
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 implies usage after a claim has been verified ('for a verified claim') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like thinkneo_verify_claim. There is no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, only contextual implication.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the multiple safety-check tools (thinkneo_check, thinkneo_detect_injection, thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail) and the many cost/reporting tools (thinkneo_agent_roi, thinkneo_decision_cost, thinkneo_business_impact). An agent would struggle to reliably pick the correct tool for a given intent. The boundaries between dashboard, audit, and reporting tools are particularly fuzzy.
All tools share the thinkneo_ prefix, but the remaining naming is inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (check_spend, list_alerts), some use noun_verb (compliance_generate, alert_rule_create), and others are bare nouns (business_impact, cache_status). This mix makes it hard to predict tool names based on action and object.
With 68 tools, this is an extremely large surface area, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped set and even beyond the 25+ heavy threshold. Even for a comprehensive enterprise platform, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's ability to choose effectively. It feels like a kitchen-sink approach rather than a curated toolkit.
The toolset covers a wide range of governance, observability, and cost-management features, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: SLAs can be defined but not updated or deleted, alert rules lack an update operation, and registry entries have no remove/unpublish. Also, policy management is limited to checking, with no create/update tool. The memory tools feel out of place and lack a delete operation.
