Recompute the hash and Merkle fold for one reveal by sequence number. Returns each check result plus the data to re-verify independently on chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| found | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| opbnbTx | No | ||
| anchorBscTx | No | ||
| verifyOnChain | No | ||
| hashRecomputes | No | ||
| merkleFoldsToAnchorRoot | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computation and return contents (check results and re-verification data), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or requires any special permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes no filler. Every phrase adds value, making it appropriately concise.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return format. It does not address error cases or edge conditions, but those are not essential for a basic verification tool.
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 only parameter 'seq' is described in the tool description as 'sequence number', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type 'number'. Since there is just one parameter, this coverage is sufficient.
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 identifies a specific action ('Recompute the hash and Merkle fold') and a specific resource ('one reveal by sequence number'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_reveals by focusing on verification of a single reveal.
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 this tool is for verification ('to re-verify independently on chain'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternative tools like list_reveals, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present but implicit.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly the same territory: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report all present overlapping per-chain market analysis at different comprehensiveness levels. attest_spec and proof_spec are also near-identical, and attest_status, attestation_stats, and list_attestations use similar attestation vocabulary. Most data tools have unique jobs, but the overlapping report and verification tiers create real misselection risk.
The server consistently uses snake_case but mixes noun-style data endpoints like prices and wall_map with command-style actions like attest, buy_key, and verify_reveal. Report names are also uneven: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report signal only vague depth differences. The set is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.
With 29 tools, this exceeds the heavy threshold and spans roughly four distinct functional areas: market data, attestation, key management, and webhooks. Each tool may earn its place individually, but the overall menu is too large for one MCP server; splitting it into data and attestation/administration servers would be clearer.
The attestation lifecycle is well covered with creation, status, listing, reveals, stats, and independent verification, and the key purchase and webhook workflows are also complete. The main gaps are historical-depth data, explicit key revocation, and a direct hire action despite hireable agents being listed, but agents can generally work around these. Core workflows do not dead-end.