Verify an anchored content-provenance record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior anchor_creation call), return the anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, and timestamp. Public — no authentication required. The verification path itself 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is public and requires no authentication, identifies return fields, and notes an alternative access method. It does not describe error cases or rate limits, but is adequate for a simple read tool.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details on input/output, and ends with a public note. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous content.
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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, input, output, and public access. It does not include error handling or sample response, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity and no output schema.
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 100% coverage with a description and pattern for the 'hash' parameter. The description adds context that the hash is the payload_hash from a prior anchor_creation call, enhancing the schema information.
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 the tool verifies an anchored content-provenance record using a SHA-256 hash, and specifies returned fields (anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, timestamp). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'anchor_creation' by being the verification counterpart.
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 indicates the input hash comes from a prior anchor_creation call, implying it should be used after anchoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative guidance beyond mentioning the GET endpoint.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates provenance records, the other verifies them. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: anchor_creation and verify_provenance.
With only 2 tools, the surface is very thin. This may be acceptable for a narrowly focused provenance server, but it feels incomplete for broader use.
The server covers creation and verification, but lacks any listing, deletion, or management capabilities. The domain may not need CRUD, but the omission of a list operation is notable.