resolve_identityResolve an ECZ-ID through the public ECZ-ID Resolver and return the exact canonical state with checked_at, Resolver proof link, re-check action and the local-policy caveat. Never asserts safety, approval or compliance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecz_id | Yes | ECZ-ID identifier, e.g. ECZ-GB-RBS1NW |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by enumerating the returned fields and adding a meaningful caveat: 'Never asserts safety, approval or compliance.' It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple one-parameter lookup this is reasonably transparent.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the operation and then lists key return components and a caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract and a behavioral caveat. It could elaborate on what 're-check action' and 'local-policy caveat' mean, but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.
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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including type, pattern, max length, and an example. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond referring to 'an ECZ-ID', so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('an ECZ-ID') and specifies the exact output ('canonical state with checked_at, Resolver proof link, re-check action and the local-policy caveat'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it goes through the public ECZ-ID Resolver and explicitly disclaims safety/compliance assertions.
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 implied usage is clear: use this tool when you need the resolved canonical state plus proof and caveat details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_resolver_link or get_current_state, nor does it state when not to use this tool versus those siblings.
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 conceptually distinct, but get_current_state, resolve_identity, and explain_status all orbit the same status/render responsibility and could be misselected without careful reading. The descriptions reduce overlap, but the boundaries are still subtle.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_request_to_resolve, explain_status, find_product, get_current_state, get_install_instructions, get_resolver_link, resolve_identity. There is no mixing of conventions or vague ambiguous verbs.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for an identity-trust utility server. Each tool covers a distinct operation area without bloat, and the count fits comfortably within the expected range.
The domain is covered well: resolution, state retrieval, status explanation, resolver links, request creation, product guidance, and install instructions. Minor gaps exist around request lifecycle management (e.g., checking or cancelling a request), but core workflows are not dead-ended.