accord_trace_verifyVerify an Accord Trace proof and optionally compare supplied content or a SHA-256 hash against the recorded evidence hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Optional exact string or JSON value to compare. | |
| hash | No | Optional SHA-256 digest to compare. | |
| proof_id | Yes | Accord Trace proof identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that supplied content or a SHA-256 hash can be compared against the recorded evidence hash, which clarifies how verification works.
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 that front-loads the primary action ('Verify an Accord Trace proof') and then states the optional comparison behavior without unnecessary words. Every part 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 three-parameter tool with one required field and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and optional modes. Combined with the exhaustive input schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying the optional data/hash parameters to the 'recorded evidence hash,' giving semantic meaning to the comparison target beyond the field-level schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('an Accord Trace proof') and states the optional comparison behavior. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like accord_trace_get_proof (retrieval), accord_trace_notarize (creation), and accord_trace_hash (hashing).
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 clearly conveys that this tool is for verifying proofs and optionally comparing content or a hash, which implies the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over siblings.
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.