Verify a signed Cerberus attestation (from any tool called with attest=true). Recomputes the canonical claim and checks the Ed25519 signature against this server's published key. Returns valid true/false with the claim. FREE — and you can verify independently with the public key at /api/attestation; this is a convenience, not a trust bottleneck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the verification process: recomputes claim, checks Ed25519 signature, returns valid flag and claim. It also notes the tool is free. No side effects are mentioned, but they are likely none. Lacks error handling details but sufficient for this operation.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently adds context about independence and free-ness. Every sentence adds value.
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 schema coverage, the description explains input provenance, process, and output. However, it does not specify the claim structure or exact parameter fields, which may require the agent to infer from other tools. Still reasonably complete for the tool's purpose.
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% and the description does not explain the structure or format of the attestation object beyond 'from any tool called with attest=true'. The parameter is essentially opaque, relying on prior knowledge of other tool outputs.
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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'signed Cerberus attestation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it handles attestations from tools called with attest=true, which is unique among the sibling list.
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 says when to use it: to verify attestations from other tools. It also mentions that independent verification is possible, implying this tool is optional. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to alternatives.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.
20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.
