Reveal the committed content's digest + salt after handover. Verifies against the commitment (one bit of drift fails); returns a delivery_proof string for escrow release. Late reveals expire the commitment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salt | Yes | ||
| commitment_id | Yes | ||
| content_digest | 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 discloses key behaviors: verification against commitment with strict failure on one bit of drift, return of a delivery_proof string, and expiration of late reveals. This adds significant context beyond the input schema.
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?
Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, verification mechanics and return, and expiration. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 description covers purpose, verification, return, and expiration, which is adequate for a reveal tool with an output schema. However, parameter semantics are lacking, and prerequisites like 'handover' are not explained, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.
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 description mentions 'salt' and 'content_digest' in context but does not explain their meaning, format, or origin. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly for each of the three required parameters.
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 that the tool reveals the committed content's digest and salt after handover, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like commit, verify, and list_commitments by specifying the post-handover 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 usage after handover and mentions that late reveals expire, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., verify or commitment_status). No exclusion criteria 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: committing, revealing, verifying, listing, status checking, and agent description. No overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (commit, describe_agent, list_commitments, reveal, verify), but 'commitment_status' uses a noun_noun pattern, slightly breaking consistency.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a notary service, covering all necessary operations without excess.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of commitments: creation, status query, listing, revealing, and verification. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.