Verify the authenticity of an Opedd license key. Returns license details including: article title, publisher, license type, issue date, amount paid, buyer info, and blockchain proof status. Use this to confirm a license is valid before using licensed content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| license_key | Yes | The license key to verify (format: OP-XXXX-XXXX) |
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 states the tool 'verify[ies]' and 'returns license details,' implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, and it mentions 'blockchain proof status' as part of the response. While it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects or prerequisites, the verification context is sufficiently transparent.
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 long. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second lists return fields and gives a usage statement. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (listing specific fields), and when to use it. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its format ('OP-XXXX-XXXX'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Verify the authenticity of an Opedd license key.' It uses specific verb+resource phrasing and lists various returned details (article title, publisher, license type, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like purchase_license or get_buyer_account.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to confirm a license is valid before using licensed content.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over others.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but list_feed and stream_feed_ndjson both list licensed articles (with different formats), and browse_registry vs publisher_directory could confuse agents about scope. Overall, the set is mostly clear.
Names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_content, purchase_license). A few outliers like rsl_get and article_53_attestation break the pattern slightly, but the majority are consistent.
17 tools cover buyer, publisher, and discovery workflows. While slightly above the typical 3-15 range, the complexity of the licensing platform justifies the count. No tool seems redundant.
The tool set covers discovery, purchase, content retrieval, compliance, and attestation comprehensively. Minor gaps like missing license management or key rotation are acceptable given the domain scope.
