Read the current signed transparency head of Obelisk's tamper-evident receipt ledger — pin it and compare later to prove history only extends. Same data as /.well-known/obelisk-transparency.json.
| 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('Read'), references a public endpoint ('same data as /.well-known/obelisk-transparency.json'), and explains the verification purpose. A minor gap is not mentioning if any auth or rate limits apply, but the description provides strong transparency given no 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Read the current signed transparency head') and immediately provides the use case and a reference to the public endpoint.
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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns (signed transparency head), why to use it (verification), and where equivalent data lives. The only minor gap is not stating the return format (e.g., JSON object details) which would be helpful but not critical given the public endpoint reference.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty). There is nothing to document, so the description cannot add extra meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate as the tool requires no input.
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 reads the current signed transparency head of Obelisk's tamper-evident receipt ledger. It specifies the verb 'read', the resource ('transparency head'), and the unique purpose (proving history only extends), which distinguishes it from siblings that deal with ratings, tokens, or scans.
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 implies this tool is for verification use cases ('pin it and compare later to prove history only extends'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or list alternative tools, though the sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely.
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.
Every tool has a distinct concern: explaining ratings, reading gate status, fetching proofs, looking up org ratings, scanning URLs, checking transparency heads, and verifying proofs/tokens. Even the proof-related tools are cleanly separated into read (get_agent_proof) versus verify (verify_agent_run_proof).
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern: explain_rating, scan_trust, get_org_rating, verify_token, verify_agent_run_proof. However, gate_status and transparency_head are noun phrases rather than command-style names, which is a minor inconsistency.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only trust and verification server. Each tool covers a meaningful capability with no redundant or superfluous entries.
The core domain is covered well: rating explanation, rating retrieval, trust scanning, gate status, agent proofs, run op and token verification, and transparency anchoring. The main gaps are convenience functions like listing organizations or resolving proof IDs, but these are not essential to the primary workflow.