1cnf-verifier

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'check entity hashes' and gives no indication of side effects, return semantics, lookup behavior, or operational constraints.

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?

The description is short and free of filler, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure and provides only a fragment of necessary context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needed to explain what result the agent should expect. It does not describe return values, success criteria, or blacklist status semantics, so an agent cannot confidently use the tool's output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain 'target_hash'. It weakly suggests the hash relates to entities, but it does not clarify format, whether multiple hashes are accepted, or how the hash is used.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and names a resource ('entity hashes'), but it does not say what 'checking' means or that these are threat-blacklist hashes. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to fully distinguish the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The sibling tools are only names and provide no basis for choosing or avoiding this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' weakly implies a read-only verification operation, but the description does not state what happens on success or failure, whether it returns pass/fail, whether it has side effects, or whether it requires specific state setup. The safety profile is left entirely to inference.

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 three-word sentence has no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure, no parameter discussion, and no behavioral context — the brevity actively harms usability rather than serving it.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, two completely undocumented parameters, and a vague one-liner, an agent lacks nearly everything needed to call this tool correctly: what inputs mean, what the check verifies, and what the result looks like. The definition is inadequate for a two-parameter verification 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Neither 'state_channels' nor 'policy_channels' is explained, and the description mentions nothing about what goes into these arrays, how they relate to each other, or how they map to the 'state intervals' being checked. The word 'state' is the only implicit tie to any parameter.

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 a verb ('check') and a resource ('state intervals'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'state intervals' does not explain what a '1cnf invariant' is, how intervals relate to invariants, or what the verification entails. With siblings like verify_liquidity_invariant, verify_risk_policy, and verify_embedding_policy, an agent cannot tell this tool apart since all four sound like checking some invariant.

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?

There is zero guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the four sibling verify tools. No conditions, no exclusions, no context about what scenario calls for checking 1cnf invariants over state intervals. The description is functionally equivalent to a one-line label.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Check embedding vectors' gives a minimal suggestion of a read-only validation, but does not disclose return format, side effects, error behavior, or how the policy is enforced.

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?

The description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague sentence does not serve the tool's semantic needs and provides no structured information.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance. The description is the only context but is far too thin to let an agent understand inputs, behavior, or return values.

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 defines a single 'vector' array with no description and 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds only a vague hint that the array represents embedding vectors; it does not explain expected dimensions, value ranges, or how the vector is evaluated.

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 says 'Check embedding vectors,' which provides a verb and a resource, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is vague: it does not explain what policy is being verified, what the check consists of, or what makes the result valid or invalid. It also does not distinguish it from sibling verify/check tools beyond the mention of vectors.

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?

No usage context is provided. There is no mention of when this tool should be used instead of siblings like verify_risk_policy or check_threat_blacklist, and no prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a validation-style operation, but the description does not state return behavior, failure semantics, or whether the tool merely validates or also enforces bounds.

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?

The description is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is concise because it omits necessary information rather than because it efficiently captures the tool's behavior.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no required parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent would have to infer parameter meaning, output format, and the actual liquidity invariant logic from the tool name alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention volume or impact_bps at all. It does not explain what these integers represent, what units or ranges are expected, or how they relate to trade execution bounds.

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 uses a verb ('Check') and a resource ('trade execution bounds'), so it is not a tautology and partially distinguishes this tool from sibling policy/blacklist verifiers. However, 'trade execution bounds' is vague and does not explicitly connect to the 'liquidity invariant' in the tool name, leaving the actual purpose under-specified.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as verify_1cnf_invariants, verify_risk_policy, or check_threat_blacklist. The one-line description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check action vectors' only suggests some kind of read-style check and does not explain whether it returns a boolean, raises on violations, has side effects, or handles malformed input. This is effectively no behavioral disclosure.

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?

The text is short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A single generic sentence does not provide enough substance for a usable tool definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the caller should expect, but it only names the input theme. It omits the relationship to risk policy, the return behavior, and any edge cases, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only the property name 'action_vector' and the type 'array'; schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats the phrase 'action vectors' without explaining the array's elements, format, constraints, or meaning. The agent gains no additional information beyond the property name.

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 a generic action ('Check') and a resource ('action vectors') but does not explicitly tie it to risk policy or say what the check determines. Among sibling verify_* tools, there is no differentiation from verify_embedding_policy or verify_liquidity_invariant. It is more than a tautology, but still vague.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use verify_risk_policy versus alternatives like check_threat_blacklist, verify_embedding_policy, or verify_liquidity_invariant. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name, not from the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.