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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific checks performed (signature with current/legacy key, transparency-log inclusion) and the free/no-credential nature. It stops short of describing the output format or error behavior, but the 'reported per check' hint is useful.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in valuable details (checks, key types, free/no-credential guarantee). Every word earns its place.
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 verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is verified, how, and under what conditions. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the response structure of the per-check report, but this is a minor gap.
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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter (cert_id) with a description that includes 'Verification is free and always will be.' The tool description repeats this information without adding new parameter-level meaning, so no significant value is added beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Verify a redeal certificate by id' with specific details on the verification process (signature check + transparency-log inclusion check). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_certificate or validate_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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it is free, requires no credentials, and can always be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.
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.