Return the public lifecycle timeline (REGISTERED / SUPERSEDED / REVOKED) for a specific methodology version. Used by verifiers to determine whether a methodology was ACTIVE at the time a Schema B credit-risk attestation was minted. Returns occurredAt + eventType + status transitions; operator-only fields (actorId, reason) are redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lenderId | Yes | ||
| methodologyHash | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the timeline is 'public' and that 'operator-only fields (actorId, reason) are redacted,' disclosing data privacy behavior. It also lists the return fields (occurredAt, eventType, status transitions), going beyond what annotations convey.
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, each serving a distinct role: core function, use case, and return/redaction details. No wasted words.
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 description covers purpose, use case, return value, and redaction. It does not explain parameter semantics or error behavior, but for a read-only, idempotent tool with annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected response format.
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 has zero description coverage for the two required parameters. The description only implies that methodologyHash refers to a 'specific methodology version' and lenderId is part of the request, but it does not explain their formats or roles. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more explicitly.
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 has a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('public lifecycle timeline'), and scope ('for a specific methodology version'), and lists the statuses (REGISTERED/SUPERSEDED/REVOKED). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_methodology_versions and verify_methodology by specifying its use for determining active status at minting time.
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 clearly states the intended use: 'Used by verifiers to determine whether a methodology was ACTIVE at the time a Schema B credit-risk attestation was minted.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as find_inventory, search_products, list_shop_products, and get_product all dealing with product discovery/retrieval with subtle differences. Similarly, verify_brand_attestation and get_brand_attestation_status could be confused, as could get_trust_dossier and get_underwriting_signals. The sheer number of verification and lookup tools makes it difficult to pick the right one without careful reading.
The cart tools use a dot-separated camelCase convention (cart.addLine, cart.updateLineQuantity), while the rest use snake_case with varied verbs (find_, get_, list_, search_, verify_, request_, quote_, etc.). This mixing of conventions and inconsistent verb choices (e.g., find_inventory vs search_products vs list_shop_products) makes the tool names unpredictable.
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded. The guidance suggests 25+ tools is too many, and this server exceeds that threshold. While the domain spans commerce, trust attestations, and lending, the count is excessive for a coherent single-server toolkit.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering cart management, checkout, product discovery, trust verification, and lending workflows. However, there are notable gaps: no cart retrieval or order history, no revoke/update for attestations, and some key lending tools (quote_credit_terms, report_repayment) are scaffolded but not yet functional, creating dead ends.
