Verify an anchored booking-request record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior request_booking call), return the anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, and timestamp. Public — no authentication required. The verification path is also accessible at GET /api/knox/verify?hash=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | SHA-256 anchor hash (64 lowercase hex chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes public, read-only nature and returned fields. No annotations present; description provides minimal behavioral context but lacks details on limits or error conditions.
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: purpose, usage, and public access. Front-loaded with core action. No fluff.
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?
Simple tool with single parameter; description covers input source, returned fields, public nature, and REST endpoint. Adequate for tool selection and 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?
Schema coverage 100%; description adds context by specifying hash is from prior request_booking call and confirms hex format. Exceeds schema-only understanding.
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?
States verb 'verify' and resource 'anchored booking-request record'. Lists returned fields and input hash source. Differentiates from sibling 'request_booking' and 'list_represented_agents'.
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?
Mentions public access (no auth needed) and REST endpoint alternative. Does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings, though implication is clear.
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 purpose: listing agents, creating a booking request, and verifying a booking. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_represented_agents, request_booking, verify_booking.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a booking request server. Each tool is necessary and there are no redundant tools.
The set covers listing agents, requesting bookings, and verifying them, but lacks tools for updating, canceling, or listing bookings, which are notable gaps for a full booking lifecycle.