proof

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable behavior. The description adds behavioral context: it returns an instant signed receipt with a public verify URL, and clarifies that the stamp asserts provenance from a signer at a time, not authorship truth. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and a caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case, return type (receipt with verify URL), and auth requirement. It could mention error handling or typical use cases, but the existing information is sufficient for an AI agent to understand invocation.

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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description enhances this by explaining that contentHash must be a sha256 hex of exact content bytes (64 chars) and that the content itself is never uploaded. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 purpose: stamp content with a permanent provenance record. It specifies the action (create), the resource (proof), and the method (pass sha256 hash). The sibling tools list, revoke, verify are distinct operations, so this creation tool is well-differentiated.

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 instructs to hash content locally and notes that content is never uploaded. It also mentions authentication requirements (API key or x402 payment). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, the context of creating a proof is clear from the sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds the precondition 'requires API key', which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, return format, or error handling.

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?

Extremely concise one-sentence description (6 words) that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description implies return of stamps but lacks explicit details about output structure (e.g., array of proof objects) or pagination. Sufficient for basic use but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', which is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the action ('list your recent stamps') and resource ('stamps/proofs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, revoke, verify) which perform different operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. The description mentions 'requires API key' but does not state when listing is appropriate or when to use create/revoke/verify instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds context beyond annotations: explains that anchored history remains verifiable and the proof is marked revoked forward-only. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations effectively.

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?

Single sentence with key details, efficient and front-loaded. Slight lack of structure (e.g., no separation of prerequisites and behavior) but still concise.

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?

Covers purpose, effect, and prerequisite, but lacks explanation of the return value or how revocation interacts with sibling tools like verify_proof. Missing parameter description reduces completeness for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'proofId' parameter. The tool name implies its purpose, but the description should clarify what 'proofId' refers to, e.g., 'the ID of the proof to revoke'.

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 'Revoke a stamp you created', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (create, list, verify) by emphasizing ownership and the revocation action.

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?

Provides clear context: requires API key and explains the forward-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the context is sufficient for understanding typical use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds valuable context: returns every stamp for the hash ordered by anchoring, with signature, anchoring, and supersession status. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return structure adequately. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but sufficient.

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 a clear description for contentHash. The description repeats 'Pass a sha256 hash' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'sha256 hex of the content bytes'.

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 action: 'Verify content against all existing stamps' using a sha256 hash. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_proof, list_proofs, and revoke_proof by focusing on verification.

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 context ('Free, no auth required') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or when verification is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.