5arz-proof-of-human

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that it returns a checkout link, that credits post on payment, and that test keys get unlimited credits without purchase. No annotations, so description fully covers 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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence 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?

Given simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return value, side effects, test key behavior, and alternative method. Complete and informative.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying pricing context and the optional apiKey parameter's use case. Slightly exceeds baseline.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action: 'Get a Stripe checkout link for a prepaid verification pack' and enumerates the three pack options with pricing. Differentiates from siblings like get_balance or verify_human.

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?

Provides when-to-use guidance: test keys skip this (unlimited credits) and mentions alternative payment method x402 for pay-per-call. Also notes requirement for API key.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses core behavior: checks ES256 signature against live JWKS, validates expiry/not-before, returns valid/invalid plus decoded claims. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it provides sufficient detail for a read-only cryptographic operation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and key differentiator ('Independently verify'), with no redundant or superfluous information.

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?

Adequately explains verification steps and output type (valid/invalid + decoded claims). Lacks detail on the exact structure of decoded claims or error handling, but acceptable given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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% with a clear description for 'pohf_jwt'. Description adds value by specifying that the JWT is 'returned by verify_human', which provides provenance context 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?

Clearly states the verb 'verify' and resource 'PoHF JWT', specifies cryptographic verification steps (signature check, expiry/not-before validation), and distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_human by emphasizing 'no 5arz trust required' and 'independently'.

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?

Implies when to use: for trustless verification of a PoHF JWT. Mentions no API key needed and that the same verification can be done with any JWT library, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like verify_human.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool returns remaining credits and lifetime stats and requires an API key. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, lacks side effects, or any potential errors. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not fully comprehensive.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence concisely states the output, and the second adds a key requirement. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally describe the return structure (e.g., object fields). It mentions 'remaining... plus lifetime purchased/consumed' but not the format. The tool is simple, so the gap is minor, but for full completeness, more detail is needed.

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% for the single parameter apiKey. The description adds value by explaining when to use the parameter ('if your client cannot set the Authorization header'), which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 'Return remaining prepaid verification credits, plus lifetime purchased/consumed' with a clear verb and resource. The title 'Check remaining verifications' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like buy_credits and check_credential by focusing on balance.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires an API key.' There is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use or context about prerequisites beyond the API key.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is free and requires no API key, which is good. However, it does not mention data freshness, update frequency, or any rate limits, which would be helpful for a benchmark index.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and why it is useful. No gaps remain.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter info is needed.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the current VHH index in USD, using the specific verb 'Return' and naming the resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_credits or verify_human, as it is a read-only benchmark index.

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 says 'Free, no API key' and that it is 'useful for pricing verified-human data and as a citable benchmark,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses key traits: free tier, test mode unlimited but marked test:true, key shown once, must be stored. Does not cover auth requirements or error handling, but provides sufficient behavioral context for safe usage.

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?

Three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Key information is front-loaded: action, purpose, then important details about free tier and test mode. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, free tier, mode behavior, security warning. Missing details like error responses or validation of inputs, but adequate for a registration tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the 'mode' parameter effect (test vs live, key prefix, test:true flag) and storage advice, going beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates an API key (5arz) for requesting proof-of-human credentials. It uses specific verb 'Create' and resource 'API key', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle credits, credential-checking, etc.

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?

Description explains when to use (to get an API key for proof-of-human) and provides guidance on test vs live modes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools; the differentiation is implicit based on distinct functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that it spends 1 credit, returns an ES256 JWT, requires an API key, and mentions verification via check_credential. Without annotations, it covers the main behavioral aspects but omits details like idempotency or rate limits.

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?

Compact and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key usage, then additional details. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters, two usage paths, no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication, cost, return type, and verification guidance.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra 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 mints a PoHF credential, specifying the two paths (sessionId for work fulfillment, memberId for personhood). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'check_credential' by mentioning the JWT can be passed to that tool.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use sessionId vs memberId, and notes credit cost and tier. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison with all sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.