Verifies the authenticity and expiry of a sigil_token returned by
sigil_verify_supply_path. Anyone can call this — no key needed; Sigil
verifies the Ed25519 signature server-side. Tokens live 5 minutes.
Returns valid (boolean), reason (when invalid: malformed / expired /
bad_signature / unsigned), and the decoded payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses server-side Ed25519 verification, no-auth requirement, token expiry, and explicit return fields (valid, reason with enum values, payload). This is rich behavioral detail beyond schema.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded purpose, followed by access/expiry context and return format. No wasted words or repetition.
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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), description fully covers purpose, input semantics, return values, and operational constraints (auth, expiry). It is complete and self-contained.
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 single 'token' parameter has zero schema description coverage. Description explains it is the token from sigil_verify_supply_path and that tokens live 5 minutes, adding important meaning to the otherwise bare parameter definition.
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?
Description states it 'verifies the authenticity and expiry of a sigil_token' and specifies the token source (sigil_verify_supply_path), distinguishing it from sibling verification tools. This is a specific verb+resource+scope.
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?
Implied usage is clear: use after obtaining a token from sigil_verify_supply_path. States anyone can call and no key needed, plus 5-minute lifetime. Lacks explicit 'do not use when' or named alternatives, but gives sufficient contextual guidance.
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 overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.
The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.
With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.