verify_nonceRecompute the proof-of-work for a (miner, nonce) pair exactly as the contract does: work = keccak256(chainId ‖ contract ‖ miner ‖ nonce). Returns the hash, its leading-zero-bit count, the current requiredBits threshold, and whether it would be accepted on-chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| miner | Yes | Miner address (0x…) | |
| nonce | Yes | Nonce (unsigned integer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it specifies the exact recomputation formula and lists the returned hash, leading-zero-bit count, requiredBits threshold, and on-chain acceptance flag. It does not mention side effects, error cases, or permissions, but for a deterministic verification operation it discloses the important 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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and formula, then the same sentence efficiently lists the return values. There is no filler, and every clause contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover purpose, computation, and results, and it does so explicitly. Minor gaps remain around error handling and the source of chainId/contract, but the core information needed to call and interpret the tool is present.
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 100%, so the schema already documents miner and nonce completely. The description references those parameters inside the proof-of-work formula, adding context about their role, but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states.
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 names a specific operation and resource: recomputing proof-of-work for a given (miner, nonce) pair, with the exact hash formula. This is clear enough to separate it from a search tool like find_nonce, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or state the contrast.
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 by the phrase 'for a (miner, nonce) pair' and 'whether it would be accepted on-chain,' which indicates this is for validating a known nonce rather than finding one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no direct guidance against alternatives such as find_nonce.
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.