Verifies a specific proof record's cryptographic integrity. Checks hash consistency and returns verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Optional original data for re-verification of hash | |
| proofId | Yes | The proof ID to verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavioral trait—checking hash consistency and returning verification status—which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it should also convey whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or fails on mismatch; this information is absent.
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 concise sentences that immediately state the primary action and outcome, with no redundant or filler content. It is well front-loaded and every word contributes 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 the tool's relative simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding core functionality. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the overall context is incomplete for an agent deciding between this and sibling verify tools.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the schema already covers their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 a specific proof record's cryptographic integrity and checks hash consistency, providing a specific verb and resource. It implies differentiation from siblings like proof_public_verify and proof_chain_verify through 'specific proof record', but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus proof_public_verify, proof_chain_verify, or other siblings. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.
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.
