Verdict query ($0.01): precomputed 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": {
"candidate": "<candidate>"
},
"name": "query_verdict"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| candidate | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the verdict is precomputed and signed and that the query costs $0.01, but it omits auth/permission needs, whether results are cached or deterministic, what a signed verdict contains, and any rate or error behavior.
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 text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool whose name and parameter are both ambiguous, the single phrase does not earn its place by conveying enough operational meaning.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description needs to explain the candidate parameter, expected result, and relationship to sibling verification/audit tools. It provides only cost and a terse characterization of the verdict, leaving key context 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?
The single required parameter, candidate, is completely undocumented in the schema (0% description coverage) and is not explained in the tool description. An agent cannot tell whether candidate is an ID, name, address, hash, or something else.
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 identifies a query operation and says it returns a precomputed signed verdict, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not define what a “verdict” is here or distinguish this tool from siblings like verify_receipts or audit_toolbox, so the purpose remains vague.
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 versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual signal is the $0.01 cost, which does not tell an agent when this query is the right choice.
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.