Verify a previously anchored SSTV-decode record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior decode_sstv 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 provided, the description sufficiently discloses that the tool is public, returns specific fields (anchor record, predecessor hash, etc.), and mentions an alternative API endpoint. No contradictions with missing annotations.
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 concise sentences, each providing distinct information: action, return fields, and public access with endpoint. No redundant text.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thorough in covering purpose, input, output details, and usage context. Minor missing error handling info, but overall complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the 'hash' parameter to the output of 'decode_sstv' and specifying it is SHA-256, beyond the schema pattern.
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 action ('verify') and the resource ('previously anchored SSTV-decode record'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'decode_sstv' by referencing the hash from a prior decode call.
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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool (after a 'decode_sstv' call) and states it is public. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context 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: decode_sstv performs decoding and anchoring, while verify_sstv_decode handles verification. No functional overlap exists.
Both tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (decode_sstv, verify_sstv_decode) using snake_case.
With only 2 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core functionality: decoding and verifying SSTV audio. This is appropriate for a specialized server.
The tool set covers the complete lifecycle presented: decoding and anchoring, followed by verification. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.