Check our work. what: 'card' (default), 'pubkey' (pin it out of band), 'onchain' (our contracts).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "verify"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| what | No | card |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior. The description adds little beyond mode labels and the phrase 'pin it out of band,' but does not explain what a check returns, what constitutes success, or any operational constraints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this remains a thin behavioral disclosure.
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 definition is very compact, front-loads the purpose, and immediately explains the parameter options. It is not verbose, though the extreme terseness contributes to ambiguity rather than reducing it.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what verification result the agent should expect. For a verification tool, knowing what outcome is returned and how to interpret the modes is important. The annotations cover safety, but the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 schema has no enum, so the description carries the burden. It does define the only parameter's accepted values ('card', 'pubkey', 'onchain') and marks 'card' as the default, which is meaningful added semantics. It stops short of explaining full mode behavior, but the enum-like mapping is clear.
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 gives a general verb ('Check') and a vague object ('our work'), then lists three verification modes. It does not clearly state what is being verified or distinguish this tool from the many siblings beyond the mode names. Purpose is inferable but not sharply defined.
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 lists the 'what' values but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when each mode is appropriate beyond terse parentheticals. The default is noted, but no exclusions or contextual triggers are provided.
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.