Verify 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the normal return, the hash recomputation semantics, and the special sealed:true behavior with withheld fields and reveals_at. It could still add explicit notes about errors, permissions, or side effects, but the disclosed redaction behavior is valuable.
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 filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the edge-case behavior is presented as a clearly separated second sentence that adds important detail without bloating the description.
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-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return values and the sealed redaction case, covering most of what an agent needs. It stops short of covering error cases such as unknown hashes or invalid input, but it is largely complete for this tool's complexity.
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 schema only defines hash as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the hash identifies the committed call and is recomputed from fields, but it does not specify the hash format, length, or how to obtain it from commit_call.
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 a specific verb ('Verify') with a precise resource ('a committed call by hash') and states the outcome: it returns the ledger record and checks whether the hash recomputes from the fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like commit_call or score_calls.
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 implies when the tool is appropriate—after a call has been committed, to verify it by hash—but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling-tool routing.
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.