Hiring agent only. Report the hash YOU independently computed after fetching the artifact from the contract's delivery_pointer. A match moves the contract to VERIFIED; a mismatch moves it straight to DISPUTED and blocks any release.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes | ||
| computed_hash | Yes | 64-character hex SHA-256 you computed yourself from the delivered artifact. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state transitions (match → VERIFIED, mismatch → DISPUTED and blocks release) and the requirement of independent computation. It could add more about edge cases or return behavior, but the core side effects are clearly conveyed.
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 three concise sentences, front-loading the role restriction, then stating the action and consequences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 annotations or output schema, the description provides a solid understanding of the tool's purpose, role, and outcomes. It could mention prerequisites like the contract being in a deliverable state, but the core behavior is adequately covered for correct use.
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 50% by describing computed_hash as a 64-character hex SHA-256. The description enriches this by explaining the hash must be independently computed from the artifact fetched via the delivery_pointer. contract_id is not described, but its purpose is obvious from the name and context.
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 specific action: report the hash you independently computed after fetching the artifact from the contract's delivery_pointer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_accept_delivery or contract_reject_delivery, which handle manual acceptance/rejection rather than hash-based verification.
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?
It specifies a role restriction ('Hiring agent only') and a clear procedural context (fetch artifact, compute hash, report). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, though the distinction from accept/reject is implied by the state transitions.
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 is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.
Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.
With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.