GET one public-root card-v0 leaf by sha256 (64 hex) from https://councilof.ai/cards/{sha16}.json. UNMEASURED cells stay visible. Three states: VALID (fetched), INVALID (not a leaf of the live root), UNCHECKABLE (fetch failed). Not a GSPC measurement-card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | 64-char hex payload SHA-256 of the card-v0 leaf. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the three possible states (VALID, INVALID, UNCHECKABLE), explains that UNMEASURED cells remain visible, and clarifies the public-root scope. This gives an agent meaningful expectations about outcomes, though it stops short of describing response shape or error details.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences deliver the resource, retrieval mechanism, outcome states, and an exclusions note with no filler. Critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what to pass, where the request goes, and what the outcome categories are. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit response format, but the stated states mitigate that.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the sha256 parameter fully. The description reinforces that it is a 64-character hex SHA-256 and includes the URL pattern, but adds no substantially new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 states a precise action ('GET one public-root card-v0 leaf'), the exact identifier type (sha256, 64 hex), and the source URL. It also differentiates itself by noting it is not a GSPC measurement-card, which distinguishes it from possible sibling tools.
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 when to use this tool (when you need a single card leaf by SHA-256) and provides a clear resource target, but it does not explicitly compare it with siblings like verify_card, verify_inclusion, or list_cards. The 'not a GSPC measurement-card' note is a category exclusion rather than a direct usage-routing guideline.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct operation: aggregate board totals, one axis row, a card leaf, the public root, the card index, signature verification, and inclusion verification. The descriptions carefully separate overlapping concepts such as measured vs. unmeasured, GSPC vs. public-root, and signature vs. inclusion, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_axis, get_card, get_root, list_cards, verify_card, verify_inclusion. board_totals breaks the pattern by using a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, but the naming is still snake_case, readable, and not chaotic.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-and-verify service: two GSPC board queries, three root/card retrieval or listing operations, and two verification checks. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full read/verify lifecycle: board totals, individual axes, root and card retrieval, card listing, signature verification, and merkle inclusion checks. Write or admin operations are not implied by the server's purpose, so there are no apparent dead ends.