Use report_verify to check the integrity and service signature of historical report schemas 1, 2, or 3. Free, stateless, and no workspace token is required. A valid signature is tamper evidence, not an audit of the underlying revenue or costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions key behaviors: free, stateless, no token required, and the meaning of the signature (tamper evidence). However, it does not describe rate limits, error handling, output format, or any side effects. It adds value but is incomplete.
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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context. Efficiently front-loaded.
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 has one nested object parameter with no schema description and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It covers purpose and key properties but lacks input parameter guidance. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might reduce the need to explain return values, but the input side remains weak.
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 mention the input parameter 'report' or its structure. The schema defines it as an object with additional properties, but no guidance on required fields or format is given. The description adds no meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'check the integrity and service signature of historical report schemas 1, 2, or 3'. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('report schemas'), and scope (schemas 1, 2, or 3), distinguishing it from sibling tools like profit_analyze or profit_attest.
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 clear context: it is free, stateless, and requires no workspace token. It also explains that a valid signature indicates tamper evidence, not an audit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like profit_attest, or when not to use it.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, though profit_analyze and profit_calculate have overlapping purposes. Descriptions clarify the difference (findings vs totals), but potential confusion remains for agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (profit_*, workspace_*, report_verify). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is appropriate for a profit ledger server, covering stateless analysis and persistent workspace workflows without excessive or insufficient tools.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered for both stateless and persistent modes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit workspace deletion or listing), but the server's purpose is well-served.