Verifi

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

Discloses polling behavior and honoring retry_after_seconds, which provides some transparency. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, potential side effects, or error conditions. Annotations are absent, so description carries the burden.

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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is acceptable if the key information is present, but here it omits important details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value, error handling, and polling behavior more completely. It mentions polling and retry but fails to describe what 'ready' or 'failed' means for the response or how to interpret results.

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?

No description of the single parameter 'verify_id' beyond its name. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the parameter's format, required value, or relation to retry_after_seconds (which is not a 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 'Poll until ready or failed' which indicates the tool checks the status of a verification process, but does not explicitly say it retrieves the result of a verification. It distinguishes from siblings like unlock_verify or verify_claim, but the purpose could be clearer.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for polling, but does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains payment logic and automated vs manual handling, but it does not reveal side effects, what 'ready chain' means, or exactly what the 'human result' contains. Some behavioral traits are transparent, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise (about 100 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently adds payment details without unnecessary repetition. Minor overhead could be trimmed, but overall it earns its space.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (two-gate process, payment mechanics), the description lacks context on what 'gate 2' is, what a 'ready chain' entails, and how this tool fits with siblings. Without an output schema, return values are barely explained. The description feels incomplete for a new user.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains payment_signature's role and when to omit it, adding value beyond the schema. However, verify_id is mentioned only in schema and not explained in description, leaving a gap.

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 'Pass gate 2 for a ready chain and return the human result,' which gives a specific verb and resource but uses jargon ('gate 2', 'ready chain') that may not be immediately clear. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_verify' and 'verify_claim' by implying it's a specific step in a multi-gate verification process, but the purpose is only moderately clear.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is the second gate in a verification chain. It mentions free first five chains, when to omit payment_signature, and how different client types handle payments. It also warns 'Never pass a private key.' However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools to guide selection.

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?

The description reveals the type of information returned (description, pricing, rules), which is adequate for a simple read-only tool with no parameters. However, it does not mention any required permissions or potential side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase that directly conveys the purpose without any extraneous words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. Additional details about the nature of the returned data could improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description correctly indicates the content of the tool.

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 clearly states that the tool provides service description, pricing, and rules, indicating an informational purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_verify.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_verify or unlock_verify.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: async processing, only one active verify per agent_id, automatic payment handling, and the free grant limit. No contradictions.

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?

Starts with a clear one-line purpose, then separates parameter details and workflow. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or tautology. Efficient yet comprehensive.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the full usage lifecycle: initiation, status polling with interval, recovery with verify_id, and final unlock. Enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds critical semantics for all parameters: intent and claim character limits, agent_id format and free grants, callback_url endpoint for events, and payment_signature as manual fallback. Fully compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Ask a real human to verify a claim' as the core function. Distinguishes from siblings (get_verify, unlock_verify) by describing the initiation workflow and next steps.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use callback_url vs polling, how to check status with get_verify, and when to call unlock_verify. Warns about the one-active-per-agent constraint, providing clear usage guidance.

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