Elucora Evidence API

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description reveals that Elucora does not see or verify the source or truth, only that a hash was submitted at a time, and that it consumes receipt quota. This prevents false 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?

Very concise, with all sentences adding value: the usage condition, the limitation, the sibling alternative, and quota impact. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, limitations, and quota, but does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a receipt ID, confirmation). Given no output schema, a brief return/confirmation statement would make it fully 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?

Schema already describes all four parameters at 100% coverage, including the hash format and optional metadata fields. The description does not add new parameter-level details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('sealing its SHA-256 hash') and clear resource/action, and immediately distinguishes from sibling elucora_capture. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you already hold the bytes') and directs users to elucora_capture for web source scenarios. It also notes quota consumption, which is relevant context.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses that the tool sends a network request and consumes receipt quota, which are important side effects. It also clarifies the evidential scope (proves what was served and when, not truth), adding behavioral nuance not captured by annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, receipt characteristics, scope clarification, and network/quota side effect. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 availability of sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its side effects, and its output nature (signed receipt). It could mention prerequisites like authentication or rate limits, but the quota mention partially covers this. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does set the context that the capture is for a 'web source served' which aligns with the 'url' parameter. No additional semantic value is provided.

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's action ('Freeze proof of what a web source actually served') with a specific resource and context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the signed receipt and offline verification, making its role in the evidence-capture workflow unambiguous.

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 phrase 'before quoting or acting on it' provides clear context for when to use capture. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to sibling tools like verify or get_receipt, so it stops short of full guidance.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that no credentials are needed and explicitly lists the data returned in the receipt (source, sealed passage, signature result, transparency log, Bitcoin anchor state). This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting 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.

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

The description is compact—two sentences—and immediately states the action, the resource, and the key return details. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds useful information.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the return fields, and the authentication context (no credentials). Combined with the annotations, the tool is fully comprehensible.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully defined by the schema with a required pattern, but the description only says 'by ID' and does not elaborate on the parameter's source or format. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds very little semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool as fetching an evidence receipt by ID and enumerates the specific contents returned (source, sealed passage, signature result, transparency log, Bitcoin anchor state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest, capture, and verify, which have different purposes.

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 gives a clear context: use this to fetch a receipt by ID. The phrase 'Needs no credentials' hints at accessibility but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or reference to alternatives; however, the distinct sibling names make the usage apparent.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'Needs no credentials' clarifies authorization requirements, and 'what source bytes it covers' hints at output semantics. No contradictions with annotations. Score 4 reflects the added value without over-describing.

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, and every sentence adds value. The description is concise without redundant information. Structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient understanding of what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks explicit return format details, but the core behavior is covered. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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%, yet the description does not explain the 'id' parameter's meaning or format beyond what the schema pattern implies. The description mentions 'receipt' but does not explicitly say that the id parameter is the receipt identifier. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not, earning a score of 1.

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's purpose: 'Check whether an evidence receipt is genuine and unaltered, and what source bytes it covers.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('evidence receipt'), and distinguishes itself from siblings (attest, capture, get_receipt) by focusing on verification rather than creation or retrieval.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this before relying on a receipt produced by someone else.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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