elucora_verifyCheck whether an evidence receipt is genuine and unaltered, and what source bytes it covers. Use this before relying on a receipt produced by someone else. Needs no credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: attest for user-held bytes, capture for web sources, get_receipt for retrieval, and verify for validation. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow the elucora_ verb pattern (attest, capture, get_receipt, verify). The naming is consistent snake_case and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped count for an evidence API: two creation variants, one retrieval, and one verification. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full evidence lifecycle: creating proof (attest/capture), retrieving receipts, and verifying authenticity. Since evidence is immutable, update/delete are unnecessary.