Generate an ML-KEM-768 (Kyber, post-quantum) keypair seeded from the QRNG->DRBG chain. Public key always returned; secret key only for the demo flow (loud demo-only note). Requires X-API-Key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_secret_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of public key, conditional secret key, and seeding approach, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or storage behavior.
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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the demo-only constraint is clearly stated.
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 single optional parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key behavior, seeding, auth requirement, and the conditional return. It also differentiates from the sibling tool kem_encapsulate.
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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that include_secret_key controls whether the secret key is returned and that it's only for demo flow. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 it generates an ML-KEM-768 keypair, specifying the algorithm and seeding method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kem_encapsulate, which performs encapsulation instead.
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 mentions that the secret key is only for demo flow and requires X-API-Key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context for typical usage scenarios.
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.
