Fetch the signed fairness certificate for a finished deal (state CERTIFIED). Includes the labelled signature (es256 or ed25519) and transparency-log inclusion proof. Verify it with verify_certificate.
| 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 indicates a read-only operation via 'Fetch' and discloses the return contents (labelled signature, transparency-log inclusion proof). It also implies a behavioral requirement (deal must be CERTIFIED). It lacks explicit statements about side effects or rate limits, but for a getter this is generally adequate.
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 core purpose and includes key details about the response format without unnecessary filler. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient 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?
Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the certificate's components (signature, inclusion proof). It also states the required deal state and ties to verify_certificate. It could mention error handling or authorization nuances, but the provided context is largely sufficient for a simple fetch with documented params.
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 coverage is 100%, with both deal_id and credential fully described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already carries the weight.
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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('signed fairness certificate'), and the condition ('finished deal (state CERTIFIED)'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifically naming the certificate and pointing to verify_certificate for the next step, making it unique among the getter tools.
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?
It explicitly scopes usage to deals in CERTIFIED state, providing a clear prerequisite. It also hints at the workflow by suggesting verify_certificate for verification, which is an implicit alternative. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or mention other tools like get_deal for non-certified deals.
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.