costheta_witnessPaid x402 Base mainnet tool: witness a caller commitment against a signed pulse certificate. Requires PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and idempotency_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commitment | Yes | Caller commitment, usually sha256:<hex>. | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Stable retry key. Same key + commitment returns the same paid result. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the paid nature and the requirement for a payment signature, which is crucial. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, side effects, or return semantics, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the key context (paid, Base mainnet) before stating the action. It is concise with no wasted words, and every piece of information (paid, requires keys) is essential.
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 tool has a paid nature and two required parameters with no output schema, so the description should explain return values or what 'witness' produces. It covers the payment requirement but omits expected outcomes, potential errors, or the significance of the certificate, making it only moderately complete.
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 mentions idempotency_key but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. It doesn't elaborate on how the parameters interact or provide format details beyond what is already stated.
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 action: 'witness a caller commitment against a signed pulse certificate.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and the paid x402 Base mainnet context. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the action is distinct enough to infer its purpose.
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 gives context that this is a paid tool requiring PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and idempotency_key, which implies when it should be used. However, it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (costheta_decide, costheta_random) or provide exclusions for alternative usage.
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 clearly distinct purpose: decide for commit-and-reveal decisions, random for public randomness, and witness for attesting commitments. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'costheta_' prefix with lowercase names. However, 'random' is a noun rather than a verb like 'decide' and 'witness', which is a minor deviation from a strict verb-oriented pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose of providing randomness and commitment services. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: obtaining randomness (random), making a private commit-and-reveal decision (decide), and evidencing a commitment (witness). No obvious gaps in the stated domain.