Return a public machine-readable trust or readiness report by validated report identifier, including its canonical SHA-256 field when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It adds context that the report is public and machine-readable, and that the SHA-256 field is only included when present. However, it does not mention error handling, whether the operation is purely read-only, or any rate limits 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose: returning a public report by identifier. The qualifying clause about the SHA-256 field is relevant and not redundant. It is appropriately sized.
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 simple input (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it is vague about what constitutes a 'trust or readiness report' and does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like get_receipt or get_trust_summary, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 one parameter (report_id) with no description, and coverage is 0%. The description only adds 'validated' to the identifier, which is a minor semantic hint. It does not explain the format or provenance of the identifier, nor how to obtain one.
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 returns a report by identifier, with a specific mention of the SHA-256 field. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_receipt and get_trust_summary by focusing on 'trust or readiness report' and the canonical hash, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage when you have a validated report identifier, but it does not explain when to choose this over similar tools like get_receipt or get_trust_summary. No exclusions or alternative conditions 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 are clearly distinct, targeting specific documents or endpoints (e.g., identity, capabilities, JWKS, receipts). However, some overlap exists among discovery-related tools (e.g., get_agent_discovery, get_agent_identity, get_capabilities, get_marketplace_listing) that could cause confusion about which to use for a given purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'hodlxxi_get_' or 'hodlxxi_verify_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase. The verbs are consistent (get/verify) and the nouns are specific, making the naming predictable and uniform.
With 26 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable for a read-only server that exposes a wide array of public documents and metadata. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, so the count is justified, though it borders on heavy.
The server covers a comprehensive set of read-only operations for its domain: identity, capabilities, skills, receipts, trust events, OAuth/OIDC metadata, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all covenants or reports (only get by identifier), but the core surface is well-covered.