Verify an Ed25519-signed verdict (free). Args: signed_verdict.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"signed_verdict": "<signed_verdict>"
},
"name": "verify_verdict"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signed_verdict | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. '(free)' usefully discloses there is no credit cost, but nothing is said about what happens on an invalid signature, whether malformed input errors out, or what the result looks like (no output schema exists).
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and algorithm. The 'Args:' clause is redundant with the schema but costs little.
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 crypto-verification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested object parameter, the description should explain expected input structure and result semantics. As written, an agent can identify the tool but not reliably invoke it.
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% and the single parameter is a nested object with no documented shape. 'Args: signed_verdict' merely restates the schema key without explaining what the object must contain (signature, payload, key fields) or its encoding.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (verify an Ed25519-signed verdict) and names the signature algorithm, which distinguishes it from siblings audit_listing and query_verdict. The purpose is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with query_verdict.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named, despite query_verdict being an obvious fork in the road. The only guidance is the parenthetical '(free)', which hints at cost but says nothing about when verification is the right call.
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.