Fetch a certificate's full JSON (outcome included) by id. Works for public deals (the default). Parties-only deals and unknown ids both return NOT_FOUND. To re-verify the computation itself, use verify_certificate (checks) or the CLI re-runner with the parties' inputs.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the full JSON including outcome, works only for public deals, and returns NOT_FOUND for parties-only or unknown IDs. It does not mention potential side effects (though it's a read operation) or error handling beyond NOT_FOUND, but for a simple fetch tool this is adequate transparency.
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 long, front-loads the core action and result, and then provides an alternative. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and the key caveat, the second directs users to alternative tools. No wasted words.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary information: what it returns, the expected cases, and alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.
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 schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter cert_id, including its format and a note about free verification. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, but it does reinforce that the ID is used to fetch the certificate. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (a certificate's full JSON including outcome), and the scope (by id, for public deals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_certificate (which re-verifies computation) and get_certificate (presumably a different retrieval variant). The statement about parties-only deals and unknown IDs adds specificity.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (fetching public deal certificates) and when not to (for re-verification, use verify_certificate or the CLI re-runner). It also notes the limitation for parties-only deals, which is essential guidance for correct tool selection.
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.