proofrelay.normalize_payment_proofValidate rail-agnostic payment or entitlement proof hashes and return the ProofRelay payment_context evidence profile. This does not charge, settle, custody funds, or verify external payment finality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_proof | 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, lowering the burden. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the tool is rail-agnostic and by clarifying that it does not charge, settle, custody funds, or verify external payment finality. It does not describe error handling, but annotations cover the safety profile well.
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 exactly two sentences, each providing essential information. The first states the purpose and output; the second enumerates explicit non-goals. There is no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant detail.
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?
With rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key context: purpose, non-goals, and the resulting evidence profile type. However, given the complex nested input and zero parameter-level descriptions, a brief note on the structure or validation expectations would make it fully complete. Still, it is strong overall.
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%, and the description does not compensate for the complex nested payment_proof object. It only refers to 'payment or entitlement proof hashes' without explaining the meanings of required fields like challenge_or_session_hash or payment_proof_or_charge_hash. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but for constructing valid input, an agent would need more guidance.
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's function: 'Validate rail-agnostic payment or entitlement proof hashes and return the ProofRelay payment_context evidence profile.' It uses specific verbs, names the resource, and explicitly lists non-goals ('does not charge, settle, custody funds, or verify external payment finality') to distinguish it from payment-execution siblings.
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 for when to use the tool (validating proof hashes and producing an evidence profile) and explicit exclusions (not for charging, settlement, custody, or finality verification). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for protocol-specific adaptation, so it lacks explicit 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.