Verify a previously issued receipt by job identifier and return verification status, validity, attestation, signed receipt, event hash, and QR pointer non-claims. This does not poll /agent/jobs and cannot mint a receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two specific non-behaviors ('does not poll /agent/jobs' and 'cannot mint a receipt'), which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, errors for invalid job_id, or security/auth requirements. It is a read operation by inference, but that is not stated explicitly.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the action and return items; the second clarifies exclusions. No redundant or vague wording.
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?
The tool is simple (1 parameter) and the description covers its function and exclusions. An output schema exists (indicated), which likely details return values. The description adequately scopes the tool's role within a larger ecosystem of get_* tools, making it complete enough for an agent to use.
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 no description for job_id, and the description only repeats 'by job identifier', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify format, origin, or validation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does so.
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 verifies a previously issued receipt by job identifier, with a specific verb ('Verify'), a resource ('receipt'), and a qualification ('by job identifier'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not poll /agent/jobs and cannot mint a receipt, aligning with the get_* tools but focusing on verification.
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 it: after a receipt is issued and needs verification, providing the job_id. It explicitly states what it does not do (does not poll, cannot mint), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not name alternative tools like hodlxxi_get_receipt, though the differentiation is implicit.
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.