Verify domain ownership for a registered agent. The agent must have a websiteUrl set. Supports two methods: "well-known" (place a file at /.well-known/humanpages-verify.txt) or "dns" (add a TXT record at _humanpages.yourdomain.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | Yes | Verification method: "well-known" or "dns" | |
| agent_id | Yes | The registered agent ID | |
| agent_key | Yes | The agent API key (starts with hp_) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key prerequisite (websiteUrl must be set) and gives exact instructions for the well-known and dns methods (file path and TXT record). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the result/return value looks like, or any side effects. The lack of outcome details is a gap.
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 main purpose, and every word contributes value. It includes the prerequisite, the two methods, and specific technical details without superfluous content.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core requirements: it explains what the tool does, the prerequisite, and how to execute both verification methods. However, it does not describe the expected return value or what constitutes a successful verification, which would be helpful for an agent to know how to interpret the result. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is nearly complete but leaves out the outcome.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds this by adding meaningful detail to the 'method' parameter: it explains the exact file path for 'well-known' and the TXT record host for 'dns', which is not fully specified in the schema. It also adds the prerequisite context about websiteUrl, which relates to the agent_id parameter. This extra explanation compensates for any ambiguity in the enum.
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 purpose: 'Verify domain ownership for a registered agent.' The verb 'verify' is specific, and it identifies the resource (domain ownership) and scope (registered agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify tools like verify_payment_activation and verify_social_activation by focusing on domain ownership.
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 provides clear context: it must be used when an agent needs domain ownership verified, and it includes a prerequisite ('The agent must have a websiteUrl set'). It also explains the two supported methods, giving the user a sense of when each might be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., get_human vs get_human_profile differ by access level, get_listing vs get_listings by specificity). There is minor overlap between check_humanity_status and get_human (both return verification info), and the deprecated no-op claim_free_pro_upgrade adds slight clutter, but descriptions otherwise disambiguate well.
All 40 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_listing, get_job_status, start_stream, submit_verdict). No camelCase or mixed conventions exist; even compound actions like make_listing_offer and leave_review fit the established pattern.
With 40 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and into the 'too many' category. While the platform covers a broad domain (hiring, listings, streams, escrow, activation), this many tools could be split into smaller focused servers for maintainability and agent selection clarity.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: search, hire, pay, communicate, approve, review. However, there is no generic cancel_job tool for regular jobs (only stop_stream for streams) and no update_listing to edit an existing listing, leaving small but navigable gaps in lifecycle management.
