axis_manifest_verifyVerify an export manifest's integrity and optionally check content hash. [Paid: $0.10 USDC via x402 for unauthenticated calls on the hosted /mcp endpoint; settled only on a successful (non-error) result.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | Yes | Export manifest JSON object | |
| expected_hash | No | Expected content hash for verification |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the endpoint is paid ($0.10 USDC) and settlement only occurs on successful non-error results. This is valuable behavioral information. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise: one sentence for core purpose and one bracketed note for payment details. Every word earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional payment info is a necessary disclaimer that doesn't clutter the message.
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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core operation and a notable payment behavior. However, it does not describe the return value format (e.g., boolean, report object) or error scenarios, which would be useful for a verification tool. The payment note hints at success/error but lacks detail.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'manifest' and 'expected_hash'. The description's phrase 'optionally check content hash' merely mirrors that expected_hash is optional, which is already evident from the schema (only manifest is required). No additional parameter semantics are introduced.
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: verify an export manifest's integrity and optionally check a content hash. The verb 'verify' and resource 'export manifest' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'axis_validate', as there may be overlap in meaning between 'verify' and 'validate'.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like axis_compare or axis_validate.
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 occupies a clearly distinct role: generation (image/text) plus status polling, pipeline processing (file vs inline), validation, repair, export, compliance, manifest verification, inspection, comparison, capabilities, and animation retargeting are all separated. The only potential overlap between axis_process and post_process_mesh is explicitly resolved by input method and scope.
Two naming styles coexist: axis_* prefix for core pipeline/contract tools and descriptive non-prefixed names for generation, repair, and compliance tools. Within axis_*, the verb/noun order is inconsistent (e.g., axis_manifest_verify vs axis_list_capabilities), making the set readable but not uniform.
14 tools is squarely within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the broad but well-defined scope of a full avatar foundry: generation, processing, validation, repair, export, compliance, and metadata inspection. Every tool serves a necessary function with no redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle from generation (image/text) and status polling through post-processing, repair, validation, export, and Roblox-specific compliance. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to list available animation clips (retarget_animation references 'built-in' clips) or manage a library of previously generated avatars, but core workflows are fully supported.