Compute a commitment string for (input, salt): sha256(JCS(input) ++ salt_bytes), prefixed 'sha256:'. Convenience only — the rule is public and you can compute it yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salt | Yes | Your hex salt (even length, e.g. 32+ random bytes hex-encoded). Keep it secret until reveal. | |
| input | Yes | Your algorithm input (any JSON value). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the exact algorithm (sha256(JCS(input) ++ salt_bytes)), the output prefix 'sha256:', and implies no side effects via 'Convenience only.' This is strong transparency, though it could be even more explicit about not persisting anything.
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?
A single, precise sentence conveys the purpose, algorithm, and optionality without any filler. The formula is compact and highly informative, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 specifies the exact computation and output format, making the tool's behavior fully defined. It does not explain JCS, but for a pure helper in a cryptographic protocol context, the missing nuance is not critical. Overall, the description is adequate for a no-output-schema compute tool.
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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including salt's hex format and the requirement to keep it secret. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Compute') and a clear resource (commitment string) with the exact formula. By framing it as 'Convenience only,' it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that likely store or manage commitments, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 states 'Convenience only — the rule is public and you can compute it yourself,' which clearly indicates this is an optional helper rather than a required workflow step. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like commit_input, the convenience framing and algorithmic detail implicitly guide when to use this tool.
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 core lifecycle tools (create_deal, commit_input, reveal_input, get_deal) are clearly distinct, and validate_input, compute_commitment_tool, and list_algorithms each serve unique steps. The certificate trio (get_certificate, get_public_certificate, verify_certificate) creates some ambiguity because two are fetch-style and one is verify-style, but their descriptions are strong enough to disambiguate in most contexts.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_deal, get_deal, commit_input, reveal_input, verify_certificate. The deviations are minor but noticeable: compute_commitment_tool appends an awkward '_tool' suffix, and get_entropy describes a domain-specific action rather than a clean action_object.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a domain covering onboarding, algorithm discovery, deal creation, sealed commitment/reveal, entropy finalization, and certificate verification. Each tool maps to a distinct workflow step, and none feel redundant or purely decorative.
The main path from create_key and list_algorithms through validate, commit, reveal, get_entropy, and certificate verification is fully covered, and VOID/EXPIRED states handle abandoned deals. Minor gaps include no explicit cancel/abort tool and no clear representation of public versus parties-only deals in the create_deal description.