archive_urlCapture a web page as it looks right now — screenshot and text — and anchor a hash of that capture on-chain. Use this before relying on a page you cite, so a later edit or deletion cannot be denied. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | the page to capture | |
| thorough | No | wait for lazy-loaded content; slower but better for long or image-heavy pages |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: capturing pages, anchoring hashes individually or in batches, fetching and verifying, and checking system status. There is no overlap or confusion between tools.
All tool names use snake_case with descriptive verbs and nouns (e.g., archive_url, notarize_hash, verify_hash), following a consistent and predictable pattern.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a notarization and archiving service, covering core operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of timestamping and verification: single hash notarization, batch anchoring, web page capture, verifiable fetch, lookup by hash, and service status. No obvious gaps remain.