Read a deal's public state: protocol state (OPEN/COMMITTING/REVEALING/CERTIFIED/VOID/EXPIRED), who has committed/revealed, deadlines, result, and certificate_id once issued. Inputs of other parties are never exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes | The deal id (d_...). | |
| credential | Yes | Your API key (initiator) or any party's invite token for this deal. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Inputs of other parties are never exposed' and implies read-only behavior via 'Read'. It lacks explicit statements about side effects or error cases, but the privacy guarantee adds strong context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase contributes (state list, privacy note). There is no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple read tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (state, participants, deadlines, result, certificate_id) and includes a privacy guarantee. It is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema (deal_id, credential); it focuses on output content rather than parameter semantics.
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 opens with 'Read a deal's public state', using a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the concrete data returned (protocol state, who committed/revealed, deadlines, result, certificate_id), clearly distinguishing it from mutating sibling tools like commit_input and reveal_input.
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 clearly implies the tool is for reading a deal's public state, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, e.g., when to prefer get_certificate over get_deal, so it falls short of a 5.
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 clear, distinct role in the deal lifecycle: key creation, deal creation, algorithm listing, input validation, commitment computation, committing, revealing, entropy retrieval, certificate fetching, and certificate verification. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_deal, get_certificate, verify_certificate). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and match the tool's function. There is no mixing of conventions.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for the fairness deal domain. Each tool earns its place, covering onboarding, deal creation, input handling, execution, and verification without unnecessary redundancy.
The core lifecycle is covered: create key, create deal, inspect algorithms, validate inputs, compute commitments, commit, reveal, fetch entropy for random deals, retrieve certificates, and verify them. The main gap is a tool for counterparties to accept/join a deal using the invite token, but this may be handled outside the MCP server.