Verify a redeal certificate by id: signature check (current or published legacy key) + transparency-log inclusion check, reported per check. Free, no credential required, always.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cert_id | Yes | The certificate id (c_...). Verification is free and always will be. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the two specific checks performed (signature and transparency-log), that results are 'reported per check', and that operation is free and credential-less. This adequately conveys the non-destructive, read-only nature of the tool.
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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes relevant details (checks, cost, credential requirement). Every clause adds value, and it is concise enough to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, procedure, and operational constraints. It hints at output granularity ('reported per check') but does not specify the return format, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the certificate id being a redeal certificate, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('The certificate id (c_...)'). The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter format beyond what schema already states.
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 tool 'Verify a redeal certificate by id' with specific actions: 'signature check (current or published legacy key) + transparency-log inclusion check'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_certificate or validate_input by focusing on verification checks.
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?
While no explicit alternatives are named, the description provides clear context by stating it is 'Free, no credential required, always', implying it can be used freely for any certificate verification. This gives a sense of when to use it without external prerequisites, though it does not explicitly rule out other tools.
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.