verify_action_receiptVerify a Corbelworks Ed25519 action receipt, payload digest, and signature against the published public key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| signed_payload_sha256 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, which match the verify action. Description adds that it verifies against a published public key and specifies Ed25519, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence with 13 words, directly states the action with no superfluous information. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 low parameter count and existing output schema, the description is acceptable but lacks usage guidelines and detailed parameter semantics. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The sole parameter 'receipt' is an object with no schema description (0% coverage). The description implies the receipt contains payload digest and signature, adding some meaning, but does not fully specify the expected structure or any subfields.
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 verb 'verify', the resource 'action receipt', and specifics (Ed25519, payload digest, signature, published public key). It distinguishes from siblings which are about reliability scans.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use. The description lacks contextual usage hints.
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: triaging permit/inspection rows, purchasing a defect scan, preflighting utility claims, and verifying receipts. No overlap or ambiguity in their roles.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (purchase_utility_defect_scan, verify_action_receipt), but one name (permit_inspection_exception_watchlist) is a compound noun rather than verb-led. Minor deviation from an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its reliability niche. Each tool addresses a specific step or concern, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tools cover a clear workflow (preflight, purchase, verify), and the watchlist addresses a distinct concern. Minor gap: there is no tool to actually execute the defect scan or retrieve results, but the purchase link may serve that purpose externally.