Submit evidence (proof file + hash + URL) to support your position in a dispute. Stronger evidence accelerates resolution — agents that document well win more disputes and preserve their reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | DID of the agent submitting evidence | |
| disputeId | Yes | ||
| evidenceUri | Yes | URL where evidence can be reviewed | |
| evidenceHash | Yes | Valid SHA-256 hash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context that 'agents that document well win more disputes and preserve their reputation,' which is useful. But it does not disclose important traits such as whether evidence can be updated or removed, authorization requirements, or what the response contains.
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 and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds motivational context about winning disputes and reputation, which is not strictly essential but not verbose. Overall, it is appropriately concise.
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 simple 4-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is acceptable but has gaps. It does not explain what happens after submission, any prerequisites like an existing dispute, or describe the 'disputeId' parameter. It gives enough for basic invocation but lacks richer context.
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 provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters, but 'disputeId' lacks a description. The description's phrase 'proof file + hash + URL' introduces a 'proof file' concept not present in the schema, which could confuse. It does not clarify the remaining parameter or add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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: 'Submit evidence (proof file + hash + URL) to support your position in a dispute.' The verb 'submit' and resource 'evidence' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'submit_proof', which may serve a similar function.
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 provides clear context: use this tool to support your position in a dispute. It states that 'stronger evidence accelerates resolution,' offering a rationale. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.