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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns each check result plus data for independent on-chain verification, implying a read-only verification operation. It does not mention permissions or error cases but gives useful behavioral context beyond the bare action.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return value. No unnecessary words or repetitions, every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers purpose and output, and the output schema exists so return details are not required. It conveys the verification workflow well, though it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., reveal must exist) or error behavior, which are minor for a read-only 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 parameter seq is implied as 'sequence number' in the description, but there is no additional detail beyond the schema (type number, required). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but remains minimal, just naming the identifier type.
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 the tool recomputes the hash and Merkle fold for a reveal by sequence number. Uses specific verb 'recompute' with a clear resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_reveals or mev_intel.
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 context is clear: use this tool to verify a specific reveal by sequence number. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the focused scope is evident. Sibling tools are mostly stats or flow related, so separation is 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.
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.