Poll the state of a verification's PSD export: status (pending|queued|in_progress|completed|failed), file size, canvas dimensions, downloads used, and download expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what is returned (status, file size, canvas dimensions, downloads used, expiry) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention behaviors like error conditions, authorization needs, or what happens before an export is requested.
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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned fields. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description already lists key return values. It misses only the explicit link to request_psd_export as the precursor action, which would make context fully complete.
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 only implies verification_id through 'a verification's PSD export'. It does not explain the format, origin, or how to obtain the verification_id, so the single parameter is underdocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: poll the state of a verification's PSD export. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like request_psd_export (which creates) and get_verification (which returns general verification data).
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 word 'poll' implies this is for repeatedly checking export status after a request, so the usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly say to use it after request_psd_export or mention when not to use it.
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 action and resource: uploads, account usage, listings, verifications, sharing, and the two verification methods are clearly differentiated by input type (single image vs RAW+JPEG). The get_verification and get_verification_share pair is unambiguous due to specific descriptions.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (create, get, list, share, unshare, verify), making the set predictable and consistent. Even longer names like verify_content_credentials follow the same verb-first convention.
With 11 tools, the server covers uploads, verification, results retrieval, sharing, account usage, and marketplace listing retrieval without redundancy. This is a well-scoped count for the feature set.
The verification lifecycle is well covered: create (two methods), upload, get, list, share/unshare, and usage check. The only notable gap is that marketplace listing management is read-only (no create/update/delete), but that's tangential to the core verification purpose.
