Encapsulate against a supplied ML-KEM-768 public key to produce a ciphertext (and, for the demo, the shared secret). Requires X-API-Key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| public_key | Yes | ||
| include_shared_secret | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the API key requirement and the optional shared secret output (for the demo). However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose error conditions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), or the exact output format. The behavioral transparency is partial but not absent.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., base64), error handling, or what happens when 'include_shared_secret' is false. The mention of 'for the demo' introduces ambiguity about production behavior.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'public_key' is an ML-KEM-768 key and that 'include_shared_secret' controls shared secret inclusion. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify formats or constraints.
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 uses the specific verb 'Encapsulate' and clearly identifies the resource ('supplied ML-KEM-768 public key') and output ('ciphertext' and optionally 'shared secret'). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kem_keypair' by focusing on encapsulation.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kem_keypair for key generation). The only guidance is implicit: it requires an X-API-Key and is for encapsulation, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: dice for dice rolls, kem_encapsulate for encapsulation, kem_keypair for key generation, random for basic random bytes, random_bytes for developer-friendly random bytes with provenance, and verify for provenance verification. No overlap.
Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, following a consistent pattern. However, there's a mix of single-word names (dice, random, verify) and compound names (kem_encapsulate, kem_keypair, random_bytes), which slightly reduces consistency but remains readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a quantum entropy service, covering key operations like key generation, encapsulation, random byte generation, and verification without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers core functionalities: key generation, encapsulation, random bytes, and provenance verification. A decapsulation tool is missing, but the server's focus on demo/encapsulation makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
