Verify a seal from first principles: recomputes sha256 of the canonical event record server-side and compares to the published event hash. Full independent verification instructions included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: recomputing sha256 server-side and comparing to the published event hash. This is more transparent than typical, though it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return format.
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 a single compound sentence, front-loaded with the verification action. It is reasonably concise, though the phrase 'Full independent verification instructions included' adds little concrete value in the description itself.
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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain usage and outcomes. It explains the verification mechanism but omits parameter semantics and expected results, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.
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 input schema only defines an 'id' string, and the description does not explain what 'id' refers to or how it maps to the canonical event record. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it remains ambiguous.
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 function: it verifies a seal by recomputing sha256 of the canonical event record server-side and comparing to the published hash. This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from the sibling get/list tools.
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 phrase 'from first principles' implies the tool is for independent verification rather than relying on the published hash, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks direct exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
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 unique, clearly defined purpose: listing, single-item retrieval, purchase transaction construction, USDC payment info, refusal ledger access, and verification. No two tools overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly distinguish the two purchase-related tools (XRPL vs. USDC/HTTP).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, verify_*), with 'get' used for retrieval and specific actions named with clear nouns. The minor variation (list vs. get) is standard and predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this niche collection server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the user journey (browse, inspect, purchase, verify, and inspect constraints), with no redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the full lifecycle for interacting with the Twelve Permissions collection: listing, individual metadata retrieval, two purchase methods (XRP and USDC), verification, and additionally the refusals ledger. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain of viewing and buying these NFTs.