Cryptographically verify an artifact: recomputes its SHA3-256, checks the signed manifest entry and the Ed25519 manifest signature. Pass sha3_256 to attest a copy you hold. Verification is free of charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | artifact ref, e.g. 'rhtp/states/oklahoma' | |
| sha3_256 | No | optional: your copy's hash to compare |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the verification steps (recomputing hash, checking signed manifest, Ed25519 signature) and states no cost. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden and does so adequately.
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 sentences efficiently cover functionality, optional parameter usage, and cost. No wasted words.
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 lacks output specification; agents cannot infer whether the result is a boolean, JSON, or error. For a verification tool, this is a gap in 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter info beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verifies an artifact by recomputing SHA3-256, checking manifest and signature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document which retrieve data, not verify.
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 provides clear context: pass sha3_256 to attest a copy, and notes verification is free. It does not explicitly define when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 targets a distinct aspect: document metadata, state profiles, sub-initiative ledgers, deadlines, program search, and cryptographic verification. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_) in snake_case, with no deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a focused data-access server, covering key query operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers core data retrieval needs: documents, profiles, ledgers, deadlines, search, and verification. The references to follow-up tools indicate thoughtful integration.
