verdict_meaningsThe exact semantics of every status and relevance value, including what this checker cannot determine. Read once before trusting a verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a limitation disclosure ('including what this checker cannot determine') beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. This provides useful context and does not contradict the annotations.
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 long, front-loaded with the core promise, and includes both scope and usage advice. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 reference tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool provides, its limitations, and when to use it. No additional context 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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's informational purpose, which is the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.
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's function: it provides 'the exact semantics of every status and relevance value,' including its limitations. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_citation by focusing on meaning rather than the checking process itself.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Read once before trusting a verdict.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The context is clear and sufficient for a reference tool.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: check_citation performs the actual verification, while verdict_meanings explains the interpretation of results. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Both names use snake_case, which is consistent, but check_citation follows a verb_noun pattern while verdict_meanings is a noun phrase, creating a slight semantic inconsistency. However, with only two tools, the names are still predictable and descriptive.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal and is borderline according to the calibration. The narrow focus on citation checking justifies the small count, but it is still on the thin side for a tool set.
The core workflow of checking a citation is fully covered by check_citation, and verdict_meanings fills the need for understanding statuses and relevance values. There are no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose, though it is intentionally minimal.