Verify a Stellaroid Earn credential by its SHA-256 certificate hash. Returns the on-chain status (issued/verified/revoked/suspended/expired), issuer, timestamps, and public audit links. Runs on Stellar testnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes |
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 that the tool runs on Stellar testnet and returns on-chain status, issuer, timestamps, and audit links. While it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, 'verify' implies a non-mutating query, and the mention of on-chain status adds useful behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core function, the second lists return contents and environment. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the environment. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case notes, but given the simplicity and clarity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 description explains that the 'hash' parameter is a SHA-256 certificate hash, adding meaning beyond the schema's pattern regex. This clarifies the nature of the input and how it relates to the verification process, which is valuable at 0% schema description 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 the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'Stellaroid Earn credential by its SHA-256 certificate hash.' It precisely distinguishes this from siblings like get_contract_info or get_issuer, which serve different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 you have a credential hash to verify, you use this tool. It provides clear context by specifying it runs on Stellar testnet, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Given the distinct purpose, this is sufficient 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.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: contract metadata, issuer lookup, individual opportunity by ID, opportunity listing, event feed, and credential verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, and get_opportunity vs list_opportunities is clearly differentiated by purpose.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_contract_info, get_issuer, get_opportunity, verify_credential), and list_opportunities also conforms. However, recent_events deviates from that pattern by using an adjective+noun structure instead of a verb, which is a minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying the Stellaroid Earn contract. Each tool serves a distinct read-only function, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range without being too sparse or excessive.
For a read-only query server, the tool surface covers all major entity types: contract info, issuers, opportunities (single and list), events, and credential verification. A minor gap is the lack of a list-issuers tool, but this does not critically hinder agent workflows given the existing lookup by address.
