One-off contradiction-verified check of a single subject (ticker and/or named entity) against the live hubs, with an as-of date and signed receipt. Free preview shows status only; paid call returns full detail + receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| ticker | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States free preview returns status, paid returns full detail + receipt, indicating behavioral tiers. But lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by valuable additional info on preview vs paid. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 no output schema, description explains return values: status for free, full detail + receipt for paid. Covers core behavior but omits specifics like status meaning or error handling. Overall adequate.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that 'name' and 'ticker' are for a single subject, and can be used together or separately. This compensates for 0% schema description coverage, making parameter usage clear.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('check'), resource ('subject'), and context ('contradiction-verified', 'live hubs', 'as-of date', 'signed receipt'). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a one-off check for a single subject, while siblings likely handle receipts or records.
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?
Implies usage for initial verification of a single subject, with free vs paid options indicating a threshold. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like verify_receipt or verify_record, nor exclusion conditions.
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 serves a distinct purpose: feed_status retrieves feed-level snapshots, verify_receipt checks receipt integrity, verify_record verifies a single feed record, and verify_subject performs independent subject checks. No functional overlap.
Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (verify_*), but feed_status is a noun_noun phrase, breaking consistency. All use lowercase with underscores, which is acceptable.
Four tools are well-scoped for a verification server covering feed status, receipt verification, record verification, and subject verification. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers the core verification lifecycle: checking feed status, verifying records and subjects, and validating receipts. Missing a tool for listing feeds or retrieving specific receipts, but not critical.