accord_trace_hashGenerate the canonical SHA-256 digest Accord Trace would register, without creating or storing a proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Exact string or JSON value to hash. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool generates the canonical digest and does not create or store a proof, clarifying it is a pure computation with no side effects, which aligns with and enriches the annotation signal.
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?
A single sentence front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by a clarifying non-effect. It contains no filler and every phrase 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 simple pure-function tool with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient: it states what is generated, what is avoided, and the input. It does not mention output format (e.g., hex vs base64) or canonicalization details, but these are minor given no output schema and the tool's low complexity.
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% with 'Exact string or JSON value to hash', so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds the 'canonical SHA-256' context but does not specify canonicalization rules or serialization details, providing only marginal value over 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 the specific verb 'Generate', the resource 'canonical SHA-256 digest Accord Trace would register', and explicitly distinguishes itself from proof-creating tools by adding 'without creating or storing a proof'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like accord_trace_notarize.
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 phrase 'without creating or storing a proof' implies this is a pre-registration hashing operation rather than a notarization or verification action, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions such as 'use accord_trace_notarize to actually register'.
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.