FREE. Zero-threshold handshake: send any text, get it echoed back with a sha256 stamp and server time — proves the whole path works before you pay anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | any short text (<=200 chars) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is free, echoes the input, and adds a sha256 stamp and server time, leaving little ambiguity about side effects or cost. It does not specify edge behavior for empty text, but that is minor for a ping tool.
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?
One compact sentence with the value proposition front-loaded ('FREE. Zero-threshold handshake') and the exact behavior stated immediately. No filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter ping tool, the description covers what to send, what to expect back, and the cost/access context. It does not explicitly address the fact that the parameter is optional per the schema, but that is a minor gap.
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 already fully describes the single text parameter, including the <=200 chars constraint. The description restates the concept ('send any text') but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly identifies a handshake/echo operation: send any text and get it echoed back with a sha256 stamp and server time. This is distinguishable from siblings like khotem_seal or khotem_receipt by its zero-threshold connectivity-test purpose.
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 explicitly frames the tool as a free, zero-threshold way to prove the whole path works before paying, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear.
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 generally clear role: attest, seal, receipt, verify, status, ping, catalog, and guide are distinguishable. The main ambiguity is between attest and seal, since both anchor hashes to ledger records, though attest is exact-match lookup while seal creates a new witnessed stamp.
All tools use the khotem_ prefix and snake_case, which is predictable and readable. However, there is a mix of verb-style names (attest, ping, seal) and noun-style names (catalog, receipt, status), plus the nested receipt_verify pattern, so it is not perfectly uniform.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a cryptographic witness service: paid operations, free verification, status, and onboarding support are all represented without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: creating proofs (attest, seal), receiving receipts, verifying receipts, checking status, and learning how to pay. A direct seal/attest verification tool is missing, but receipt_verify and the attest exact-match behavior cover most practical needs.