x402_evidenceRead public settlement evidence recorded by the canonical SqueezeOS rail. A challenge or signature is not treated as settlement proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description adds the behavioral detail that challenges or signatures are not treated as settlement proof, which is useful extra context.
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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It is well-structured and directly states the tool's purpose.
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?
The description does not specify what the return value or output format will be. Since there is no output schema, more detail on what constitutes 'evidence' or what the response contains would improve completeness.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description has nothing to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is high, and the description does not introduce any confusion.
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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'public settlement evidence', and adds a clarifying statement about what does not count as proof. This distinguishes it from other tools like x402_contract or x402_readiness.
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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely describes what it does without providing selection criteria or exclusions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: capability discovery, inspection, comparison, recommendation, system status, x402 contract/evidence/readiness, and provider trust verification. The descriptions precisely differentiate actions on the same domain (e.g., discover vs. inspect vs. recommend capabilities), leaving no ambiguity.
Naming follows a lowercase-underscore convention but mixes styles: some are verb_noun (compare_capabilities, inspect_capability, verify_provider_trust) while others are noun phrases or standalone nouns (capability_manifest, system_status, x402_contract). The pattern is readable but not consistently verb-oriented.
10 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized read-only server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of SqueezeOS capability management, x402 metadata, or provider trust, and none feel redundant or superfluous.
For the stated purpose of providing read-only capability discovery, x402 payment metadata, and provider trust verification, the surface is comprehensive: manifest, discovery, inspection, comparison, recommendation, status, trust verification, contract, evidence, and readiness are all covered. No obvious operations are missing for this read-only scope.