verify_document_hashFind FreeSign receipts matching a local document SHA-256 hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_sha256 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no receipt is found, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced in description.
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?
Single sentence with no waste, but could include additional helpful context like typical use without being verbose. Efficient but slightly too terse.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about expected behavior, such as response format or error handling. It meets minimum viability.
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%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name 'document_sha256' by mentioning 'local document SHA-256 hash'. It does not explain how to obtain the hash or any constraints.
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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'FreeSign receipts matching a local document SHA-256 hash'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, get_receipt, and verify_audit_chain, 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description only implies usage for finding receipts by hash, lacking explicit context or exclusion criteria.
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: creation of an envelope, retrieval of OTS proof, retrieval of full receipt, verification of audit chain integrity, and lookup by document hash. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_object' pattern with underscores (e.g., create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, verify_audit_chain). Verbs are clear and objects specific.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—envelope creation, evidence retrieval, and verification. No unnecessary tools and sufficient coverage for core operations.
The tool surface covers creation, evidence retrieval, and verification of audit chains and document hashes. A minor gap is the absence of a direct signature verification tool, but this is partially addressed by get_receipt providing signature data.