Verify the human → agent delegation chain and check whether a specific tool is whitelisted for this agent. Answers the regulatory question: "Did a real human authorize this AI action?" Returns the principal identity, delegation depth, cert validity, and tool authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_pk | No | Agent Ed25519 public key (64 hex chars) | |
| tool_name | Yes | Name of the tool the agent intends to call |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses returned values (principal identity, delegation depth, cert validity, tool authorization) and implies a read-only verification through the verb 'Verify', but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error cases. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy; it earns a top score for conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly lists the return fields. It also explains the purpose and regulatory context, making it fairly complete for a simple read-only tool. It misses minor aspects like error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a verification tool.
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 both parameters with descriptive text (agent_pk as Ed25519 key, tool_name as intended tool), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource ('human → agent delegation chain') and adds the specific check of whether a tool is whitelisted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_audit_proof and verify_jurisdiction by focusing on the delegation chain and authorization question.
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 clearly anchors usage to the regulatory question 'Did a real human authorize this AI action?', providing a strong context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 targets a distinct compliance aspect: delegation chain verification, audit proof generation, and jurisdiction verification. There is no overlap in purpose or functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_delegation_chain, generate_audit_proof, verify_jurisdiction. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a niche domain focused on AI agent compliance. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core regulatory needs: verifying delegation authorization, generating audit evidence, and confirming jurisdictional compliance. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.