accord_trace_get_proofRetrieve public proof metadata and machine-readable verification instructions by proof identifier. Raw submitted content is not stored or returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof_id | Yes | Accord Trace proof identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the metadata is public, and raw submitted content is not stored or returned. This is a valuable clarification for the agent.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The first states the primary action and resource; the second adds a key limitation. Every word 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, read-only, idempotent lookup, the description fully covers what the tool retrieves, what key to use, and what it will not return. Since there is no output schema, the high-level description of return content is sufficient for correct 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 100%, and proof_id is already documented as 'Accord Trace proof identifier.' The description reinforces that lookup is by proof identifier but adds no additional format, constraints, or examples, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb, 'Retrieve', and a specific resource: 'public proof metadata and machine-readable verification instructions by proof identifier.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools by framing this as a read-only lookup operation rather than hashing, notarizing, or verifying.
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 makes it clear this is the tool to use when an existing proof identifier is known and metadata or verification instructions are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as verify or notarize, so it stops short of a 5, but the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.
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 addresses a distinct action: generating a local hash, creating a proof, retrieving proof metadata, and verifying a proof. The descriptions clearly separate preparation, creation, retrieval, and verification, leaving no meaningful overlap.
All tool names share the accord_trace_ prefix and use clear verb-style commands: get_proof, hash, notarize, verify. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused notarization and verification service. Each tool serves a necessary role without redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the core lifecycle: prepare a hash, create a proof, retrieve proof metadata, and verify a proof. Since the domain is an immutable proof registry, update and delete operations are not expected, so no meaningful gaps exist.