Recompute the ruling from its cited evidence + trust inputs and check it matches the stored allocation (machine-checkable justice).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 indicates a read-like verification but uses 'recompute' which could imply mutation. It does not clarify side effects, required input state, or behavior on mismatch. For a verification tool, more transparency is needed.
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 conveys the core function efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and purpose. A slight improvement could be separating into two sentences for clarity, but overall it is concise.
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 tool has one input and an output schema (as indicated), the description provides sufficient context for a verification tool. It explains the mechanism (recomputing from evidence and trust inputs) and purpose (checking against stored allocation). The sibling tools offer additional 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?
With only one parameter (case_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the tool description does not expand on format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Recompute the ruling from its cited evidence + trust inputs and check it matches the stored allocation'), using a specific verb ('verify' implied) and resource ('ruling'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rule' and 'get_case' by 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'rule' which might create a ruling. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'machine-checkable justice' hints at post-submission verification but is not explicit.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: filing cases, querying, submitting evidence, setting trust scores, ruling, and verifying. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., file_case, get_case, submit_evidence). Even 'rule' is a concise verb that fits the pattern.
8 tools is well-scoped for an arbitration server: covers filing, evidence, trust, ruling, verification, and querying. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers the full arbitration lifecycle: case creation, evidence submission, trust score input, ruling, verification, and case listing/retrieval. No obvious gaps.