Cryptographically verify that a ZAMBOT spark is authentic and was generated by the Zambo Stack. Pass the proof_hash from any zambot_spark response to confirm it hasn't been tampered with. Returns verified spark content, timestamp, and authenticity status. Free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | The proof_hash from a zambot_spark response (hex string). Example: 'a3f9b2c1...' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return values ('verified spark content, timestamp, and authenticity status') and operational characteristics ('Free, no auth'). This is good transparency for a verification tool.
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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that convey all essential information without any wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and listing results.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and operational notes (free, no auth). No additional information is needed.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the schema already provides a description. The description adds value by specifying the source of the hash ('from a zambot_spark response'), which helps the agent understand the parameter's origin. A score of 4 reflects the added context 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 purpose: 'Cryptographically verify that a ZAMBOT spark is authentic and was generated by the Zambo Stack.' It specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'ZAMBOT spark', distinguishing it from related sibling tools like zambot_spark (which generates sparks) and zambot_chain (likely for chain 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?
The description explains when to use the tool: 'Pass the proof_hash from any zambot_spark response to confirm it hasn't been tampered with.' It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is specific enough to guide the agent.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are several overlapping or redundant tools (e.g., leadsignal vs leadsignal_generate, multiple code audit tools, multiple trading proposal/journal tools, and several 'universal' entry points like zambo_help, zambo_ask, zambo_universal). Descriptions help, but the volume creates ambiguity.
Naming conventions vary across prefixes (zambo_, zambot_, axis_, presence_, trading_, etc.), with some tools using single words (weather, translate) and others using verb_noun patterns. Aliases like leadsignal_generate for leadsignal break consistency. While prefixes provide some grouping, the overall pattern is mixed.
125 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even if the server aims to be a universal stack. This makes it overwhelming for agents to navigate and increases the likelihood of misselection. Many tools could be split into domain-specific servers.
The tool surface is extraordinarily comprehensive, covering agent identity, cross-layer orchestration, code analysis, content generation, legal scanning, lead generation, trading, on-chain data, and more. Nearly any common agent task is supported with multiple tools, leaving few obvious gaps.