List the account's verifications, most recent first. Optional filters: status (pending|queued|in_progress|completed|failed) and result (true=authentic, false=not).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the ordering ('most recent first'), filter semantics, and result meaning ('true=authentic, false=not'). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (size/offset) or any rate limits/auth requirements, which would be valuable for a list endpoint.
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 a single front-loaded sentence: 'List the account's verifications, most recent first.' It then efficiently lists the optional filters. 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 all-optional parameters and an output schema (which presumably describes return values). The description covers the core behavior but does not explain pagination semantics (size/offset) or elaborate on potential edge cases. It is adequate but could be more 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' and 'result' parameters, including the enumerated status values. However, 'size' and 'offset' are not described; while their names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their role in pagination, leaving a gap for half the parameters.
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 'List the account's verifications' with a specific verb and resource, and adds ordering ('most recent first') which distinguishes it from siblings like get_verification (singular) and list_my_listings (different resource).
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?
Usage context is implied: use this tool to list verifications with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_verification for a single verification) or when this tool would be preferred over sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.
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.
