Submit a question to Oathlayer for verification. Returns whether the answer is approved, unverified, reflects multiple perspectives, is too complex to verify, or needs clarification. Also returns a permanent doc reference number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Oathlayer API key from your dashboard at oathlayer.com. | |
| question | Yes | The question or statement you want Oathlayer to verify. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return types (approval statuses) and a permanent doc reference, providing good insight into what the tool does beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention side effects or API limitations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second lists outcomes and a key returned value. Efficient and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return information thoroughly. It covers input, processing, and output details, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'apiKey' and 'question'. It is adequate but not enhanced.
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: submitting a question to Oathlayer for verification. It lists specific possible outcomes (approved, unverified, etc.) and mentions a permanent doc reference number, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools, so disambiguation is perfect.
The single tool name 'verify_output' follows a clear verb_noun pattern with no inconsistencies.
Having one tool is borderline; it may be appropriate for a narrow purpose but feels thin compared to typical well-scoped servers that have 3-15 tools.
The tool only allows submission of a question, but lacks retrieval or management of the returned doc reference, creating significant gaps for tracking or reusing verification results.