verify_hashLook up a sha256 across EVERY bsv.cx protocol — notary timestamps, verifiable-fetch receipts, notarized captures, web-page archives, Merkle batch roots and attestations — and return when it was anchored and the transaction that proves it. A hash anchored by any of these counts as found. Free, and never rate-limited into unavailability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | the sha256 hex digest to look up |
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.
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.