bsv.cx

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the capture includes screenshot and text, is timestamped on-chain, and is free. It does not cover rate limits, error handling, or processing time, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: action and output, usage guidance, and cost. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main capability.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the output (screenshot, text, on-chain hash). It could mention return format, but it is sufficient.

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% for the two parameters, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the 'thorough' parameter or add usage context for parameters.

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 captures a web page (screenshot and text) and anchors a hash on-chain. It uses specific verbs 'Capture' and 'anchor', and distinguishes from siblings like get_archive (retrieve) and notarize_hash (just hash).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before relying on a page you cite' and explains the benefit of preventing denial of edits or deletions. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or 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.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it discloses non-obvious pricing behavior, the batched/Merkle tree mechanics, and the HTTP/x402 payment requirement — unusual and critical for correct invocation. It doesn't cover error cases, idempotency, or response format, which slightly prevents a 5, but what it discloses (pricing model, payment path) is exactly the non-obvious behavioral information agents commonly misstep on.

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?

Three sentences, ~50 words, zero redundancy. Each sentence earns its place: (1) what it does + economics, (2) what you get back, (3) cost/payment mechanics. Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase, 'Anchor a Merkle root...' — the description is tight, scannable, and information-dense.

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 1-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, this description hits every needed context: the operation's purpose, its performance characteristics (cheaper per item), return value expectations (inclusion proofs), and edge-case payment behavior (x402, /pay reference). The 5000-hash limit lives in the schema where it belongs, so nothing material is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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% — the single `hashes` parameter is fully defined with pattern, min/max constraints, and a description. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds contextual value by explaining the batching benefit ('single transaction', 'inclusion proof'), but doesn't add syntax or format details for the parameter itself, which is appropriate since the schema already covers it.

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 uses highly specific language: 'Anchor a Merkle root over many sha256 digests' plus 'far cheaper per item than notarizing each one' clearly identifies the batch operation and differentiates it from the notarize_hash sibling. The title 'Timestamp many hashes in one transaction' reinforces the purpose with a specific verb+resource structure. This stands distinctly apart from siblings like archive_url or verify_hash.

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 'far cheaper per item than notarizing each one' explicitly positions this tool AGAINST notarize_hash with a cost-based decision criterion — this is a when-to-use/when-not-to-use signal. The mention of 'Each hash gets an inclusion proof' gives the agent a reason to choose this tool (batch cost efficiency) and what value to expect. It never explicitly says 'use for batching, not single hashes,' but the implied tradeoff is unmistakable and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a manifest and that it is 'Free,' but does not detail side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence plus one word ('Free.')—and front-loads key information. Every part earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the purpose and parameter. It could add detail about the manifest format, but is sufficient for the context.

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 little beyond the schema's own description of the 'hash' parameter, merely reinforcing that it comes from a previous capture.

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 action ('Fetch the manifest') and the resource ('previous archive_url capture'), and specifies what it includes ('when it was taken, and its proof'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_url, which creates captures.

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 implies usage after archive_url by referencing 'previous archive_url capture,' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: on-chain transaction, free, idempotent, privacy-preserving. It misses potential side effects like transaction fees or confirmation time, but covers the essential traits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, privacy, cost, idempotency all in compact form. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (privacy, idempotency, cost). It does not detail return format or errors, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 already describes both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing that 'sha256' must be sent alone and that 'label' is optional and public, addressing privacy and usage beyond 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 uses specific verb 'anchor' and resource 'sha256 digest in a Bitcoin SV transaction', clearly defining the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_url' or 'verify_hash' by focusing on timestamping a hash.

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 tells users to send the hash and emphasizes that content never leaves the user's machine, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different cases, but the usage is well implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that bsv.cx fetches the Merkle proof, folds it against synced block headers before serving, and that the bundle is verifiable by any @bsv/sdk client. It also discloses that the service is priced per call and paid via x402, making side effects and requirements transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the verification process, then provides pricing and payment context. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler, making it dense but efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input requirement, the processing behavior, the output contents (BEEF, BUMP, attestation), verifiability, and payment method. There are no meaningful gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single txid parameter, including its pattern and a description that it is the confirmed transaction id. The description reinforces this but does not add significant new meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('portable, pre-verified proof bundle'), and the exact scope ('for any CONFIRMED BSV transaction id'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling spv_verify by noting that verification is free separately, while this tool performs fetch + fold + package.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when you need a pre-verified portable bundle for a confirmed transaction. It also contrasts with the free verification endpoint and mentions the x402 payment requirement, giving the agent clear routing and prerequisite information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check (reporting is non-destructive), and clearly states the output is a report on anchoring status. While it doesn't enumerate side effects, none are expected for a status check, which is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It provides the essential purpose and a usage condition without superfluous detail.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns ('whether anchoring is currently working'), implying a boolean or status result. It is sufficient for a simple status check, though it could be more explicit about the exact return format.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed, which aligns with a simple status query.

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: 'Report whether anchoring is currently working.' This is a specific action on a specific resource (anchoring status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status checks rather than archiving, fetching, or hashing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this if a tool reports something stored but not anchored.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, making the condition clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: verification happens against headers bsv.cx syncs itself via P2P, never against an explorer; the user sends only the proof, the server folds the root itself; and the result is confirmed/rejected/inconclusive. It also notes it's free. However, it omits operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or how recent the synced headers must be, which could affect reliability. Yet the core trust model and expected outcome are well disclosed, so a 4 is warranted.

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 longer than typical but each sentence adds information: format list, trust model, scope, and fee status. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately distinguishes from explorer-based verification. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'NOT an explorer' and later 'never have to trust bsv.cx' repeat the same idea), but overall it's efficient and well-ordered. A slightly tighter version could score a 5, but this is acceptable.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 3 distinct input formats, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the valid input combinations, the expected result types, and the trust model. It stops short of discussing error cases (e.g., what happens if a proof is malformed or a header is unavailable) and doesn't disclose any rate limits or usage restrictions beyond 'free'. Given the complexity, the coverage is strong but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 each parameter has a basic description, but the tool description adds critical semantic context beyond the schema. It explains parameter interdependencies: bump must be paired with txid, nodes/index/height apply only to raw TSC proofs, and which combinations correspond to which proof types. This is valuable because the schema alone lists parameters flatly without flagging these dependencies or usage patterns, so the description meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Verify ANY Bitcoin (BSV) Merkle inclusion proof' against bsv.cx's own headers. It lists concrete input formats (BEEF, BUMP, raw TSC), contrasts with explorer-based verification, and names the result outcomes (confirmed/rejected/inconclusive). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_hash or archive_url, which handle simpler hash anchoring or archiving rather than full Merkle proof verification.

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 makes the intended use context explicit: 'the trustless core' and 'Works for ANY txid's proof, not just bsv.cx's own anchors.' It explains when to use it (you have a proof and want trustless verification) without requiring trust in bsv.cx. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., when only a hash is available, verify_hash might be more appropriate). The guidance is clear for the main use case but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions pricing and the x402 payment mechanism, which is helpful, but it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether receipts are stored), rate limits, authentication requirements, or handling of redirects/errors. The fetch is read-only implied but not explicitly stated, and there's no mention of response structure or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and proof feature, followed by the payment note. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect as a return value. It says 'readable text' and 'receipt' but does not specify the response format, how to interpret the receipt, or error/payment failure handling. The tool has moderate complexity (payment, proof generation), and this description leaves important details unspecified, though it is not entirely inadequate.

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% for both parameters (url and thorough), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies 'url' is the target and 'thorough' waits for lazy content, but these are already in the schema. It does not clarify default behavior or edge cases beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb (fetch) with a clear resource (URL) and adds the unique value proposition of returning a proof receipt via hash anchoring. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like archive_url or verify_hash by focusing on fetching with verifiability, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to prove what a page said at fetch time. It also notes payment is required, which is a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context (need for proof) is clear enough for most agents to differentiate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is free, never rate-limited, and returns anchoring time and the proof transaction. It does not specify behavior for a hash not found, which would be helpful. Still, the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines input, output (anchoring time and transaction), and service characteristics. The only missing detail is behavior for missing hashes, which is a minor gap.

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 the parameter sha256 having a pattern and description. The description adds 'the sha256 hex digest to look up', which is essentially the same as the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as no significant extra meaning is added.

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 looks up a sha256 across all bsv.cx protocols, listing specific protocol types. The verb 'look up' and resource 'sha256' are specific, and the scope is explicitly delimited, distinguishing it from siblings that may be protocol-specific.

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 implies when to use: to check if a hash is anchored across any of the listed protocols. It also mentions it's free and never rate-limited, reassuring availability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, though sibling names suggest other tools for specific actions like notarizing or archiving.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.