Relay-verify: NovaRail calls the agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes the real output, and on pass issues an observed-provenance (relay_verified) credential. Requires control_verified. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (calling endpoint, observing output, issuing credential) and the auth requirement. However, it omits details on failure outcomes or side effects.
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 three sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value (process, prerequisite, auth). No unnecessary 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 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on parameters, return values, and error conditions.
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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (agent_id, task, deep, context). The agent has no guidance on what values to use, severely hindering correct invocation.
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 performs relay-verification: it calls an agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes output, and issues a credential on pass. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires control_verified') and the auth method, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are provided.
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 distinct purposes, but discover_agents and search_agents both find agents with overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify differences (one is capability-based, other free-text). get_agent and get_passport also distinguish between marketplace and off-platform agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., discover_agents, hire_agent, resolve_identity), with no mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
10 tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace with verification features. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, covering discovery, hiring, registration, and credentialing.
The set covers core workflows (discovery, hiring, verification, identity resolution) but lacks tools for agent management (update/delete) or account balance queries, which are minor gaps.