Finalise your contribution (consent required). Pass your participant_token (or the owner_token). Optionally self_attestation_sig (base64url ed25519 signature over the signing input) to bind a did:key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| consent | No | ||
| merge_id | Yes | ||
| parent_id | Yes | ||
| self_attestation_sig | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'consent required' and an optional signature, but it fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive or reversible), required permissions, or error states. The behavior is partially explained but lacks depth.
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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and key parameter hints. It is front-loaded with the main action and required consent. However, it could be better structured with clear sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics for all required fields (merge_id, parent_id, consent) or return values. Context on when to use the tool is missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'token' parameter (participant_token or owner_token) and mentions 'self_attestation_sig' as optional. However, it does not explain 'merge_id', 'parent_id', or 'consent' (beyond stating consent is required). With 5 parameters, this is insufficient.
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: 'Finalise your contribution (consent required).' It identifies the key action (finalizing) and resource (contribution/parent). Although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, the action is distinct from other tools like cancel_merge or get_birth.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description mentions 'consent required' but does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct operation: merge workflows (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) are separate from birth queries (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage, verify) and auxiliary functions (stats, revocations, colony handle verification). No two tools have ambiguous purposes.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (cancel_merge, get_birth, list_births), with minor exceptions like 'merge_status' (noun_verb) and 'random_birth' (adjective_noun). The convention is largely consistent and readable.
16 tools is a reasonable count for a system handling both birth certificates and merge intents. The number is well-scoped, not excessive, and each tool contributes to covering the domain without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full merge lifecycle (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) and birth querying (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage). While there is no explicit tool to create a birth (it is a product of a merge), the set feels complete for the intended workflows.
