List redeal's algorithms (split.v1 fixed-budget fair division, random.v1 verifiable random selection, shapley.v1 Shapley shares, auction.v1 sealed-bid second-price auctions) with their input contracts and the published test vectors (served inline — the same fixtures the engine test suite runs). Read this before creating a deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that test vectors are 'served inline — the same fixtures the engine test suite runs', which is a behavioral detail about output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or has no side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description covers some behavioral traits but not comprehensively.
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 core purpose ('List redeal's algorithms...'). It packs relevant details (algorithm versions, test vectors, usage hint) without unnecessary words. Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences for readability, but overall it is concise and well-structured.
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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns (list of algorithms with contracts and inline test vectors). However, it does not describe the format of the response (e.g., array, key structure, pagination) or any error conditions. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but leaves some gaps.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage trivially. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by specifying what the list contains (algorithm names, input contracts, test vectors). With no parameters to document, the description effectively provides all semantic context for the tool's purpose and output.
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 'List' and the resource 'redeal's algorithms', enumerating specific algorithms (split.v1, random.v1, shapley.v1, auction.v1). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are action-oriented (commit_input, create_deal, etc.) rather than listing-oriented.
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 includes the phrase 'Read this before creating a deal', which implies when to use the tool (before deal creation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is present but minimal and implied.
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.