DERIVATION TRUTH: raw upstream payloads, SHA-256-pinned, with the exact collector code hash for each fetch. Replay any published value: fetch the verify_url yourself, run the pinned code, compare. Answers 'a hash proves a footprint, not the derivation' — divergence from origin is mechanically detectable. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Optional: filter to one symbol (e.g. AKT). Omit for the coverage list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions that values are 'free' and that the tool enables replay verification via provide verify_url and code hash, and states that divergence is mechanically detectable. However, it does not clarify the output format, whether any mutation is involved, or potential limitations. The cryptic language obscures operational 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 description is a single unbroken sentence-like block that leads with a slogan and then meanders through verification concepts. It is neither concise nor front-loaded with the core action. The phrase 'DERIVATION TRUTH' is attention-grabbing but not informative, and the overall structure wastes space on rhetorical framing rather than clear functional statements.
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 there is no output schema, the description must define what the tool returns, but it never explains the ledger's structure—whether it is a list of records with fields like payload, SHA, code hash, verify_url, etc. It mentions 'coverage list' but does not define it. For an agent to know what to expect from a call, this is incomplete.
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 schema provides complete coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, describing it as an optional filter and referencing the coverage list. The description adds no extra parameter context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance or detract from parameter understanding.
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 never explicitly states that the tool returns the derivation ledger. It opens with the slogan 'DERIVATION TRUTH' and discusses SHA-256 pinning and replay verification, but the direct action ('get the ledger') is only implied by the tool name. It does add meaning (raw upstream payloads, hashes, code hashes) so it's not a tautology, but an agent must infer the primary function from context.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like verify_footprint or get_zk_provenance. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The only practical note is 'Free', which addresses cost, not usage context or prerequisites.
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.