proofrelay.map_lender_condition_evidenceMap lender condition text, evidence, reviewer, and waiver hashes into a portable condition profile without satisfying lender conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| condition | 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 and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the explicit note 'without satisfying lender conditions.' This clarifies that the tool does not alter condition fulfillment, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. The description does not contradict any annotation, and it provides a valuable additional constraint.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action verb. It includes the core purpose and a key caveat without extraneous information. Every part is relevant and efficient.
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 tool has a nested input object and an output schema (not shown), but the description does not explain the output 'portable condition profile' or any transformations. It explains the main behavior but omits details about hashing, output structure, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of the input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough.
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 for parameter meaning. It mentions 'lender condition text, evidence, reviewer, and waiver hashes' which map to some fields like condition, evidence_hashes, reviewer_hash, and waiver_hash, but it does not explain the required fields condition_id, condition_type, condition_hash, nor optional fields like status, non_secret_refs. The description offers a high-level concept but insufficient detail for the agent to understand each parameter's role.
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 maps lender condition text, evidence, reviewer, and waiver hashes into a portable condition profile. The verb 'Map' and the resource 'lender condition evidence' are specific, and the caveat 'without satisfying lender conditions' distinguishes it from tools that would modify condition status. This is a clear purpose that differentiates from siblings like build_bundle_draft or verify_bundle.
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 when a portable representation of condition evidence is needed without changing condition status, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. No alternative tools are referenced, and no exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only 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.
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.