Verify the provenance of an issued value from its request_id and/or receipt. Provenance only -- never a value-confirmation oracle. Anonymous, rate-limited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | No | ||
| request_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is anonymous and rate-limited, and clarifies it only checks provenance not value. However, it omits details on error handling, idempotency, or whether inputs are validated, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first defines the core purpose, and the second adds important caveats (provenance only, anonymous, rate-limited). Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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 provenance verification tool with no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the inputs and basic behavior but lacks any indication of the return format (e.g., boolean, details) or whether both parameters can be omitted. Sibling tools are unrelated, so cross-tool context is 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations. The description only states 'from its request_id and/or receipt', which adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify formats, constraints, or whether at least one is required.
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 that the tool verifies provenance of an issued value using request_id and/or receipt, and explicitly distinguishes it from being a value-confirmation oracle. The verb 'verify' and resource 'provenance' are specific and unambiguous.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (provenance verification) and when not to (value confirmation). It also mentions anonymity and rate limits. However, it does not explicitly address prerequisites or alternatives among sibling tools, though siblings are unrelated.
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.
