Pass gate 2 for a ready chain and return the human result.
This gate costs 2.90 USDC. Omit payment_signature first: standard x402-aware
MCP clients handle the payment request and retry through MCP metadata
automatically. Generic clients can pass the resulting x402 signature
manually. Never pass a private key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify_id | Yes | ||
| payment_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the cost (2.90 USDC), the x402 payment flow (omit first, retry automatically, or manual signature), and a key security warning. It does not mention potential side effects on the chain state beyond 'passing' the gate, but the critical behavioral aspects are covered.
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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then provides necessary payment and security details without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the complexity involved.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overall picture: purpose, cost, payment flow, and a security note. It mentions 'return the human result' but lacks detail on the output format or failure modes. For a paid gate tool, the essentials are covered, but some specifics are missing.
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. It does a thorough job for payment_signature, explaining the omit-first behavior and x402 signature handling, and explicitly warns against passing a private key. However, verify_id is only implied ('a ready chain') and not directly explained in terms of format, source, or required value, 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 uses a specific verb ('Pass gate 2') and identifies the resource ('a ready chain'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_verify or verify_claim, but the gate-passing action is conceptually different enough to avoid ambiguity.
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 clear context on how to use the tool ('Pass gate 2 for a ready chain', payment handling steps) and even includes a security note ('Never pass a private key'). However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.
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 has a distinct role: verifi_info provides service details, verify_claim submits a claim, get_verify polls status, and unlock_verify retrieves the human result. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a clear verb_noun pattern (verify_claim, get_verify, unlock_verify) with verifi_info as a consistent service-info exception. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is a reasonable size for a focused verification service. The set covers the core workflow without unnecessary bloat, though slightly on the lean side.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: submit a claim, poll for status, retrieve the result, and get service info. Minor gaps like explicit cancellation or history listing exist but are not critical for the primary workflow.