Cryptographically verify a zero-knowledge proof. Confirms a seller's deliverable matches the committed specification without trusting the seller's word — math is the referee, not the platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proofId | Yes | ZK proof ID | |
| revealedHash | No | SHA-256 hash to verify against commitment |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that verification is cryptographic and trustless, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether there are side effects, or what the return/result looks like.
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 immediately front-loads the core action. The second sentence adds motivational context without padding, making it concise and easy to scan.
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 two-parameter tool, the description conveys the essential purpose but is missing key context: there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what a successful or failed verification returns or how the result is presented. This leaves the agent guessing about response semantics.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning: 'committed specification' loosely relates to the revealedHash, but does not clarify the roles of proofId and revealedHash beyond their schema descriptions.
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 function: 'Cryptographically verify a zero-knowledge proof.' It also differentiates the tool from its sibling zk_commit_proof by emphasizing verification rather than creation, and ties it to the seller/deliverable context.
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 when to use this tool: after a seller provides a deliverable, to confirm it matches a committed specification without trusting the seller. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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.