verify_bio_auditBioTrust Service 06b — verify a receipt a THIRD PARTY issued. use it rather than create_bio_audit_receipt for bio audit, not bio audit receipt; an object with reason, valid. $0.02 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | No | The receipt to operate on. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | Whether the artifact verified. | |
| reason | No | Why the verdict was reached. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / reasonAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Why the verdict was reached.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / statusRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / validAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Whether the artifact verified.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "valid"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that the receipt is third-party issued and that the operation costs $0.02 USDC; it does not contradict the annotations.
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 short and front-loads the core action, but the phrasing is garbled, especially 'for bio audit, not bio audit receipt' and 'an object with reason, valid'. It is concise but not cleanly structured.
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 tool is simple, has full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain returns. However, the receipt structure and exact verification semantics remain vague, leaving some ambiguity for invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'an object with reason, valid', but this fragment is unclear and does not meaningfully clarify the `receipt` parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: verify a receipt issued by a third party. It also names the sibling `create_bio_audit_receipt` as an alternative, though the phrase 'for bio audit, not bio audit receipt' is confusing and weakens differentiation.
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?
It explicitly names `create_bio_audit_receipt` as the alternative, which is useful, but the condition 'for bio audit, not bio audit receipt' is ambiguous. No other when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.
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.