deusproof-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the authorship scoring, timestamping, public ledger sealing, Bitcoin anchoring, the witnessed vs signed tiers, the inability to hold private keys, and the response containing a challenge. This is rich behavioral detail that goes well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with 'Record what you made and when' and packs a lot of information into four sentences. Each sentence contributes value, though the note about private keys and the 'witnessed' tier is slightly convoluted. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 description explains the primary return value (a permanent verify URL) and the response challenge, covering key outputs since no output schema exists. It also explains the witnessed vs signed tiers and ledger anchoring. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but this is not essential for using the tool itself.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (model, handle, output, prompt). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying 'the text' refers to output and prompt being the instruction. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Record what you made and when' and details the full process including authorship scoring (AAS 0-100), timestamping, sealing on a public append-only ledger, and Bitcoin anchoring, returning a verify URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like notarize_hash (hashing) and verify_certificate (verification) through its focus on creation and authorship.

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 does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when to use this over alternatives like notarize_hash or verify_certificate. It implies usage for recording creations and mentions the optional signing challenge, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance. Context like 'Free, no account' is helpful but does not directly guide tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the public nature and the returned data fields, and 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, error behavior, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value: it names the resource, lookup method, and the contents returned, with no repetition 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 lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, identifier formats, and return contents. It doesn't mention not-found behavior or error cases, which would be useful but not essential for a public record lookup.

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 single parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains it accepts a did:key or handle. This adds essential meaning beyond the parameter name 'did_or_handle'.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' followed by the resource 'an agent's public passport', and immediately specifies the lookup keys (did:key or handle). It clearly differentiates this read/lookup tool from sibling tools like certify_creation and verify_certificate.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for retrieving a public passport by did:key or handle. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the process (RFC 3161 timestamping, append-only ledger, Bitcoin anchoring), privacy (only hash sent), the fact it's free and requires no account, and the limitation that it doesn't prove authorship. This goes well beyond a minimal 'notarize' statement.

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 tightly packed—each sentence adds value: purpose, process, use case, cost/account, and limitation. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is simple (1 required param, no output schema), yet the description covers the purpose, privacy behavior, technical process, ideal use cases, accessibility (free/no account), and a key limitation. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it, and no output schema exists to shift the burden.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reinforces the purpose of output_hash ('send only its SHA-256'). No extra semantics for optional params, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 purpose: to prove content existed at a specific time without revealing it, using only a SHA-256 hash. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it proves existence/time and not authorship, and the title emphasizes 'nothing is uploaded'.

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?

Provides a clear 'when to use' scenario: 'Ideal for private code, drafts or anything you must keep secret but want provable priority for.' It also gives a 'when-not' by stating 'Proves existence and time — not authorship.' However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for proving authorship, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool reads/returns (score, authorship tier, hashes, Bitcoin anchor state, ledger status), but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions. For a verify operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 action, and contains no superfluous information. Each sentence adds value: the first defines scope and outputs, the second gives a practical use case.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, how it is identified, and a typical use case. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention the return format explicitly.

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 has one required parameter (certificate_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the tool checks 'by id', confirming the parameter's purpose. However, it provides no additional detail about the format or constraints of the id, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 purpose: 'Check any DEUSPROOF certificate by id' and enumerates specific attributes checked (score, authorship tier, hashes, Bitcoin anchor state, ledger status). This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like certify_creation or get_agent_passport.

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 use case: 'Use it to confirm a claim someone shows you.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.