Issue a content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry (verifiable green-compute / energy claim).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states 'issue' implying a write operation and 'content-addressed' suggesting immutability, but fails to disclose side effects such as whether the ledger is modified, whether the attestation is permanent, or any permission requirements. Critical behavioral information is missing.
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 one concise sentence (14 words) with a clear action-first structure. The parenthetical adds valuable context without bloat. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral side effects, which are essential for a mutating write operation. The presence of sibling verify_attestation further highlights the need for clearer context on when to use this tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented entry_id parameter. It references 'a ledger entry' but never explicitly names entry_id or explains its format or role in content addressing. Minimal compensation for a single required parameter.
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 uses a specific verb 'Issue' and identifies the resource ('content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling verify_attestation. The parenthetical 'verifiable green-compute / energy claim' adds helpful domain context.
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 the tool's purpose (creating attestations) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention that verification should use verify_attestation or any prerequisites for issuing an attestation.
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: recording work, recording inventory, listing, verifying, and attesting. 'attest' and 'carbon_receipt' are somewhat related but serve different functions (general attestation vs. carbon-specific receipt), so they are not easily confused.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (record_work, list_entries, verify_chain), but 'carbon_receipt' and 'footprint' are noun-only, and 'attest' is verb-only. This slight inconsistency in verb usage makes the pattern less predictable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a compute ledger and carbon accounting domain. Each tool covers a distinct concern—recording, querying, verifying, and summarizing—without redundancy.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: recording compute work and inventory, retrieving and listing data, verifying chains and attestations, and generating summaries. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.