elite-agentic-platform

eas_verify_audit_chain

Takes events in order, each with core (the event fields), prev_hash (null for the first) and hash. Recomputes sha256(prev_hash + '|' + canonical JSON of core) and reports whether the chain holds and the index of the first event that does not. Pricing: {"unit": "call", "price_usd": 0, "free_quota": "200 per day per IP", "note": "Keyed volume pricing is published at https://app.eliteagenticsolutions.com/pricing"}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "eas_verify_audit_chain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`events`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value on top by specifying the exact hash construction, the return semantics (validity plus first-failure index), and a rate limit (200 calls/day per IP). It does not explain how 'canonical JSON' is defined, which matters for producing matching hashes, but the pricing/quota disclosure is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The algorithm is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return behavior is stated immediately after, so an agent gets the essentials first. The trailing pricing block is boilerplate that dilutes the operational content slightly but conveys the free-tier limit.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description supplies the input structure, the hash formula, and the shape of the result (validity + first failing index). It stops short of naming the exact response fields and leaves 'canonical JSON' undefined, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains that each element carries core (the event fields), prev_hash (null for the first element) and hash, which tells an agent how to build a valid chain. Remaining gaps are the hash encoding (raw hex vs prefixed) and the 1000-item cap, both undocumented in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation on a specific artifact: it recomputes sha256(prev_hash + '|' + canonical JSON of core) over an ordered event list and reports whether the chain holds plus the index of the first bad event. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does, and it is clearly not one of the sibling tools (about, pricing, usage).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the algorithm description: an agent can infer it should call this when it has an ordered event list with prev_hash/hash fields and wants tamper detection. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement (e.g., that events must be supplied in original chain order and unmodified).

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

All elite-agentic-platform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?