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 explains what the tool lists (algorithms, input contracts, test vectors) and notes the test vectors are served inline and are the same fixtures the engine test suite runs. This gives useful behavioral context. A small gap is not explicitly stating it is read-only, but that is implied by 'list'.
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 one sentence that front-loads the purpose ('List redeal's algorithms') and then provides specific details in a parenthetical list. Every piece of information is useful; there is no redundancy or wasted words. The usage guidance is appended naturally.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned: the algorithms with their input contracts and test vectors. It also gives a usage hint. There is no missing information needed for an agent to understand and use this tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not detract from parameter understanding.
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 explicitly states it lists redeal's algorithms and enumerates them by name (split.v1, random.v1, shapley.v1, auction.v1) along with a brief explanation of each. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_deal or commit_input.
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 ends with explicit guidance 'Read this before creating a deal', indicating the tool should be used early in the workflow. While it doesn't list when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role.
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.