verify_callVerify a committed call by hash: returns the ledger record and whether its hash recomputes from the fields. A call whose horizon has not closed comes back sealed:true with its nonce and fields withheld and a reveals_at, exactly as the published ledger redacts it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | the call's sha256 as 64 hex chars, as commit_call returned it; case does not matter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hash / descriptionAdded value: +"the call's sha256 as 64 hex chars, as commit_call returned it; case does not matter"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the return shape (ledger record plus hash-recompute verdict) and the important edge case: a call whose horizon has not closed comes back sealed:true with nonce and fields withheld plus a reveals_at. That redaction behavior is exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.
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, front-loaded with the action and result, then the sealed-case caveat. No filler, and the most surprising behavior is placed where it will be read.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: ledger record, recompute verdict, and the sealed/withheld variant with reveals_at. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a response is missing.
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 single hash parameter is fully documented in the schema (sha256, 64 hex chars, case-insensitive, sourced from commit_call), so the description adds no format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a committed call by hash') plus what it returns: the ledger record and whether the hash recomputes. That cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling commit_call without needing to name it.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: you verify a call that was previously committed, and the schema's mention of 'as commit_call returned it' supplies the linkage that the description omits. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings.
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.