Validates a metadata object against the Boson Protocol schema (PRODUCT_V1, BUNDLE, BASE, etc.) without storing it. Use before store_*_metadata to catch errors early. Read-only. Returns: validation result with any errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reinforces readOnlyHint annotation and adds context: it validates against specific schemas (PRODUCT_V1, BUNDLE, etc.) and returns a validation result. No contradictions.
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?
Three succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes value.
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 one nested parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what schemas are validated, that it's read-only, and that it returns a validation result. Minor gap: could specify that all fields in metadata are validated against the chosen schema.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the set of allowed schemas. However, it does not detail the metadata object structure beyond the schema's required 'type' field.
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 it validates metadata against Boson Protocol schemas without storing, distinguishing it from sibling store tools like store_product_v1_metadata.
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 recommends using before store_*_metadata to catch errors early, providing clear guidance on when to use. No explicit when-not, but sufficiently directs agent.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap among multiple commit_to_* and sign_receive_* variants that could confuse an agent. The tool boundaries are clear for the core workflow, but the sheer number of similar operations slightly reduces clarity.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., commit_to_offer, create_seller). Some inconsistency exists with mixed verbs like 'store_', 'sign_', 'send_', but the pattern is largely predictable and readable.
With 63 tools, the server is heavy but covers a complex protocol (offer lifecycle, disputes, metadata, meta-transactions). The count is borderline; some tools (e.g., multiple signing helpers) could be consolidated, but the scope justifies the size.
The tool set covers the core protocol flows comprehensively: create, commit, redeem, dispute, resolve, void, and metadata storage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated 'get_offer_by_id' but filtering suffices), and meta-transaction support is extensive.
