proofrelay.compute_readiness_signalCompute a public-safe readiness signal from title, closing, wire, lender-condition, approval, exception, and risk hashes/counts. The tool does not certify readiness to close or fund.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| readiness | 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value beyond these by clarifying that the output is 'public-safe' and explicitly stating it does not certify readiness, which provides additional behavioral context about the tool's limitations and output nature.
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 core purpose, and includes a succinct caveat. There is no fluff, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.
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 the tool's complexity (a nested object with 10 properties and an output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the purpose and input categories but does not explain the nature of the computed 'readiness signal' (e.g., what it represents, its format, or how to interpret it). While the output schema exists, the description does not add enough context to make the tool fully self-contained.
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 does list high-level categories (title, closing, wire, etc.) that map to the nested object fields, but it does not explain individual parameter meanings or the structure of the required 'readiness' object. It provides some context but not enough detail to fully understand each field without relying on names and types.
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 verb 'Compute' and the resource 'a public-safe readiness signal', and lists the specific input categories (title, closing, wire, etc.). It also includes a scope limitation ('does not certify readiness to close or fund'), which helps differentiate it from potential certification tools. This is specific and not tautological.
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 provides a clear negative usage guideline by stating the tool does not certify readiness, which tells the agent when not to use it for certification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for certification or provide a positive 'use when' scenario, so it lacks full alternative guidance.
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.