Publicly verifies a DPU's cryptographic integrity without authentication. Checks SHA-256 hash validity, previous/next chain link integrity, and returns verification status. Anyone can verify — no credentials required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The DPU ID to publicly verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the verification steps (SHA-256 hash, chain link integrity) and the output (verification status), but does not discuss potential errors or side effects. Overall, it gives a solid picture of the tool's behavior.
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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids redundancy and provides only essential information, making it easy to parse and understand.
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?
The tool is simple with a single input and no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does, what input it requires, and what it returns (verification status). No additional context is needed.
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 parameter 'id' is described in the schema with the same text as in the tool description ('The DPU ID to publicly verify'), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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's function: publicly verifying a DPU's cryptographic integrity without authentication. It specifies the resource (DPU) and the action (verify), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing the public and credential-free nature.
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 for when to use this tool—when public verification is needed without authentication—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for most use cases.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (record, get, export, report, chain verify), but proof_verify and proof_public_verify both verify cryptographic integrity with overlapping semantics. The descriptions clarify the auth and chain-link differences, but an agent could still confuse them.
All tools follow a strict 'proof_' prefix with a verb action (get, record, verify, export, report, chain_verify, public_verify). The pattern is consistent, snake_case throughout, and predictable.
With 7 tools covering proof recording, retrieval, verification, export, and reporting, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. No redundancy or bloat, and each tool serves a clear function.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of proof management: record (create), get (read), verify (check integrity), export (format), and report (human-readable output). A list operation is missing, but it's not critical for the domain's core workflows.
