Verify Token
Verify a Cashu ecash token — check format, amount, and spent status.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses what the verification covers (format, amount, spent status), which adds value. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how errors are returned. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden, and this leaves safety and failure behavior unclear.
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 one sentence explaining the purpose and a brief response section. Every sentence earns its place, no redundant text. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core function but lacks response details (what fields are returned), error conditions, and any side-effect notes. This is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent needing full context.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'token' parameter beyond calling it a 'Cashu ecash token.' It omits format details, examples, or constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field name and type.
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 'Verify a Cashu ecash token — check format, amount, and spent status.' This identifies a specific verb (verify), a specific resource (Cashu ecash token), and the distinct scope of verification (format, amount, spent status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_ecash and receive_ecash.
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 implies when to use the tool: to verify a token before use. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide alternative tool names. Context is clear, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.