Check one sealed claim by tenant plus seq or hash. Before reveal time only the receipt shows; after it the claim text and salt are included
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq | No | ||
| hash | No | ||
| tenant | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| found | Yes | ||
| record | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the response differs depending on reveal time ('Before reveal time only the receipt shows; after it the claim text and salt are included'). This adds valuable context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 an output schema is present, the description adequately explains the conditional response content (receipt vs claim text and salt). It covers the essential behavior and parameter relationship, though the optionality of seq/hash is slightly underspecified.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the usage pattern 'tenant plus seq or hash', clarifying that tenant is required and either seq or hash is needed. However, it does not clarify whether both can be provided or what happens if neither is given, leaving some ambiguity.
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 specifies the action ('Check') and the resource ('one sealed claim'), with the selection criteria ('by tenant plus seq or hash'). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like 'list_attestations', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage for checking a single claim via tenant and seq/hash, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_reveal' or 'list_attestations'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among report tools (situation_report, deep_report, market_state) and spec tools (attest_spec, proof_spec). These could confuse an agent selecting the most appropriate endpoint.
Tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, but follow mixed patterns: verb_noun for actions (buy_key, list_attestations) and bare nouns or noun phrases for data endpoints (prices, congestion, wall_map). This is readable but not fully uniform.
With 26 tools, the set is heavy and covers multiple domains (attestation, market data, key management, webhooks). It sits just above the borderline for comfort, but the breadth is justifiable given the server's multi-purpose nature.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage for attestation (create, read, verify), key management (buy, claim, status), and webhooks (register, status, unregister), plus a wide range of market data endpoints. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends.