proofrelay.adapt_agent_identity_evidenceMap Concordium, ERC-8004, DID, domain, wallet-controller, or IAM identity references into a hash-only PREP-3 input. ProofRelay accepts identity as evidence; it does not issue identity or certify people.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identity | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The text adds useful context: it accepts evidence without issuing identity or certifying people, which is not encoded in annotations. It does not expose hashing internals, failure modes, or normalization behavior, so not a 5.
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 sentences provide the core semantics with modest structure. Some jargon ('PREP-3', 'hash-only') adds density; no fluff.
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?
Rich context: nested input schema with enums (provider variants), annotation hints, output schema true, and many sibling tools for comparison. However, no return-value explanation, error/gql edge cases, and does not clearly describe the trust-proof procedure or output hash format; the output schema exists but the narrative doesn't fully synthesize the overall result.
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 coverage is 0% and parameter descriptions are absent. The specification only enumerates the location of identity parameter objects; provider enum values provide top-level content, but nested fields (e.g. issuer, timestamps, hashes, register hash) have no semantic description; the documentation's 'identity' does not explain those particular fields. A fairly deep parameter gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: "Map ... identity references into a hash-only PREP-3 input." It also indicates a behavioral boundary ('accepts identity as evidence; does not issue identity or certify people'). Some domain jargon ('PREP-3', 'hash-only') is not defined, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the core action is clear.
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?
Notes that the tool accepts evidence and does not issue identity, which implies a read/transform role; however, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools, provide alternative conditions, or explicitly specify prerequisites for input identity formats.
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.
All 26 tools have distinct names that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., adapt_agent_identity_evidence vs. build_audit_pack_manifest). No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous functions, even though some share similar verbs; the nouns and description contexts differentiate them effectively.
The tool names follow a uniform convention: all start with 'proofrelay.' and use lowercase verb_noun with underscores (e.g., proofrelay.build_bundle_draft, proofrelay.verify_signed_attestation). There is no mixing of camelCase, across the entire set.
The server exposes 26 tools, which exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16–25 and falls into the 'too many' category (>25). While the tools cover a broad domain (evidence verification, risk scanning, etc.), the large number might overwhelm agents and suggests that some tools could be merged or the scope narrowed.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of operations—adapting, building, verifying, scanning, recommending, and summarizing—across multiple subdomains (identity, payment, audit, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for updating or deleting evidence, but overall the surface appears very complete for the described functionality.