THE KEYSTONE. Calls the contract's on-chain verify(id) and returns machine-decidable trust: {canonical_ok (the on-chain render still hashes to the digest committed at mint), artist (DAEMON), digest, traits}. One call, a trustable answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | token id to verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully explains that the call is on-chain and defines canonical_ok precisely, but it never states that the call is read-only/non-mutating and gives no error or invalid-id behavior.
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 core behavior and return shape are front-loaded in a compact sentence. 'THE KEYSTONE' and the final 'One call...' are slightly redundant, but the definition is still efficient.
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 supplies all key output fields and explains the crucial canonical_ok meaning. It omits failure modes and any relationship to sibling tools, but otherwise an agent can call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%; the 'id' parameter is already described as 'token id to verify'. The description only echoes verify(id) and adds no extra semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Calls the contract's on-chain verify(id)') and specifies the exact trust-related return fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from koine_provenance or nonce_verify, so it misses the top tier.
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?
Phrases like 'THE KEYSTONE' and 'One call, a trustable answer' imply this is the primary tool for obtaining on-chain verification, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given.
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.
The koine_ and nonce_ prefixes cleanly separate two distinct collection workflows, and within each prefix every tool addresses a unique action or resource. Even the two verify tools are easily distinguished by collection prefix and their exact verification behavior.
Tool names share a clear collection-prefix snake_case scheme, making grouping and selection predictable. However, not every name follows the same verb_noun form—info, census, spec, listings, and provenance are noun-style while mine, get, list, and verify are verb-style—so the pattern is consistent but not perfectly uniform.
13 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct on-chain art collections with read, discovery, verification, and minting workflows. Each tool maps to a real operation, with no obvious filler or redundant entries.
The NONCE half covers the full lifecycle well: spec, mine, mint_packet, verify, info, census, and get_piece. The KOINE half covers discovery, provenance, listings, and verification, but the only acquisition route is external Seaport fulfillment, with no KOINE purchase or fulfillment packet equivalent to nonce_mint_packet—a minor but real gap.