resolve_receiptResolve any DomainDrift provenance receipt by id: the public Ed25519 commitment (output hash, signing key, timestamp, chain link) for one observation. Public and keyless. Verify the signing key against /.well-known/domaindrift-keys.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Receipt id, as returned in any signed record or preview |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses auth requirements ('Public and keyless') and a verification step ('Verify the signing key against /.well-known/domaindrift-keys.json'), which are meaningful behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by trust/verification context. No redundant wording 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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input (id), the return contents (commitment fields), and an important verification behavior. No critical context is missing.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds little beyond restating that resolution is by id, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') with a specific resource ('DomainDrift provenance receipt by id') and clearly states the output contents (Ed25519 commitment: output hash, signing key, timestamp, chain link). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the receipt-based lookup and keyless verification.
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 gives clear context: use this to resolve any DomainDrift receipt by id, and it is public/keyless. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'Public and keyless' plus verification instruction provides useful usage framing.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: aggregate rollup, domain lookup, receipt verification, public keys, and daily digest. No overlap.
Naming patterns are mixed: verb_noun (lookup_domain, resolve_receipt), noun_noun (internet_tape), gerund_noun (signing_keys), and a phrase (whats_changed_today). While readable, they lack a consistent convention.
Five tools are well-suited for the domain intelligence service, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers core functionality – aggregate stats, domain lookup, verification, and daily digest – but lacks batch queries or historical trends, which are minor gaps.