verify_evidenceRun deterministic checks and return Ed25519-signed evidence after one explicitly authorized x402 payment. A free precheck receipt and a matching bound payment requirement are required before signing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires an explicitly authorized x402 payment, is deterministic, and needs a precheck receipt and bound payment requirement. With annotations already covering idempotency and read-only/destructive hints, this extra context is meaningful and non-contradictory.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. Every sentence adds critical context: what the tool does, payment authorization, and prerequisites.
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 description provides essential workflow context (payment, precheck receipt, bound payment) and mentions the signed evidence return, but lacks details about the complex nested parameters and the output structure. Given the rich schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer much from schema alone.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters directly. It only indirectly hints at precheck_receipt_digest and spend_policy via 'free precheck receipt' and 'bound payment requirement', but the complex nested intent structure (evidence, assertions, idempotency_key) remains unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('Run deterministic checks') and resource ('return Ed25519-signed evidence'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the paid x402 payment requirement and prerequisites. It is unambiguous about what the tool does and differs from quote/prepare/describe siblings.
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 states prerequisites ('A free precheck receipt and a matching bound payment requirement are required before signing'), making it clear when this tool should be invoked. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to understand ordering relative to prepare/quote siblings.
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.
The tools mostly have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between quote_verify_evidence and prepare_verify_evidence_purchase, both involving quotes, and describe_verify_evidence also mentions validation. This could cause some confusion for agents deciding which tool to call.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which is consistent. The only minor deviation is get_revenue_goal_status, which is longer but still verb_noun. Overall, the naming is predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a verification utility with a payment flow. Each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from description and status checks through quoting, purchase preparation, and final verification. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.