notarize_hashAnchor a sha256 digest in a Bitcoin SV transaction, proving the content existed at this time. Send ONLY the hash — the content never leaves your machine, and bsv.cx cannot see what was hashed. Free. Idempotent: the same hash returns the same record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | optional public note stored with the proof | |
| sha256 | Yes | sha256 hex digest of the exact bytes you want to timestamp |
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.
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.