Canonical developer endpoint: DRBG-derived bytes in hex or base64 with a signed provenance receipt. Requires X-API-Key; 32..4096 bytes; per-key rate limit + daily quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | ||
| format | No | hex |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it generates cryptographic bytes (DRBG-derived), outputs hex or base64, includes a signed provenance receipt, and imposes key-based rate limits and quotas. No side effects mentioned, but as a read-like operation this is acceptable.
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 packed with relevant information: endpoint type, cryptographic source, output formats, authentication, size constraints, and rate limits. No unnecessary words; every part 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?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core: what it does, auth, constraints, and output format. It does not elaborate on the provenance receipt format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions size range (32..4096 bytes) and possible formats (hex or base64), but does not explain default value for format or explicitly state that size is required. Adds meaning but lacks full precision.
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 specifies the verb 'generates' implicitly through 'Canonical developer endpoint' and explicitly states the resource: 'DRBG-derived bytes in hex or base64 with a signed provenance receipt.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'random' and 'dice' by mentioning DRBG and provenance.
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?
Explicitly states requirements: 'Requires X-API-Key; 32..4096 bytes; per-key rate limit + daily quota.' Provides clear context for when to use (cryptographic randomness) but stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use.
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.
