verified-feed

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output components (per-record status, as-of date, stale flags, receipts) and defines stale flags in terms of SLA. It implies a read-only query with no side effects. A score of 4 reflects good transparency, though it could explicitly state if it's non-destructive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and outputs. Every part adds value: the purpose, the components, and the example. 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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the key aspects: what is returned and a usage example. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or assumed behavior for missing feeds, but is adequate for a basic tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only provides an example value ('govcon-demo') for the 'slug' parameter but does not explain what a slug represents or how to find valid values. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema definition.

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 returns 'the latest verification snapshot of a minted feed' and lists specific components (per-record status, as-of date, stale flags, signed receipts). It distinguishes from siblings like verify_receipt, verify_record, verify_subject which handle individual verification, while this tool covers the full feed snapshot.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The suggestion to 'Try slug govcon-demo' implies a starting point, but there is no comparison with sibling tools or conditions for use. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the operation as recomputing and verifying, implying a read-like behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or whether the underlying data is modified. The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and required parameter, though it could be slightly more structured with separate usage notes.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation. However, it omits expected return values or success/failure indicators, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying that the parameter is a 'receipt id'. While this clarifies the purpose, it does not provide format, source, or validation constraints, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 recomputes and verifies a hash-chain for a receipt, indicating a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_record and verify_subject by focusing on receipts. However, the term 'hash-chain' is somewhat technical, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feed_status, verify_record, or verify_subject. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: attaches verification status, as-of date, source links, and tamper-evident receipt. It also mentions the re-checking process and states that the result is 'a dated evidence statement, never a guarantee', providing realistic expectations.

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 the key action in the first sentence. It is concise but the second sentence is dense. No wasted words; well-structured.

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 complexity (contradiction checking, signed verification, multiple statuses), the description covers the process, output, and limitations. Without an output schema, it adequately explains return values and behavioral nuances.

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 the description does not need to add much parameter detail. While the description mentions the record structure and feed, it does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'record', specifying 'on ONE record of a data owner's feed'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (feed_status, verify_receipt, verify_subject) by focusing on a single record verification.

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 implies the tool is for verifying a single record, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a one-off check, contradiction-verified, against live hubs, with an as-of date and receipt. It also explains the difference between free preview and paid call.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage nuances. It lacks details on return values or errors but is adequate for the tool's scope.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that parameters 'name' and 'ticker' refer to a subject (ticker and/or named entity). However, it lacks specific format or usage details for each parameter.

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 it performs a one-off contradiction-verified check of a single subject against live hubs, with as-of date and signed receipt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_receipt and verify_record by focusing on a single subject check.

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 guidance on free vs paid usage (free preview shows status only, paid returns full detail + receipt). It does not explicitly specify when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.