Independently verify a revealed commitment; optionally check it against the digest of content you received.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commitment_id | Yes | ||
| content_digest | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving agents uncertain about behavior beyond the basic operation.
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, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded with bullet points or additional context without losing conciseness.
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 presence of sibling tools and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or how verification works, leaving agents to infer critical details.
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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It mentions 'content_digest' but not 'commitment_id', leaving its semantics unclear. The description adds marginal value beyond the parameter names.
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: 'Independently verify a revealed commitment' with an optional digest check. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'commit', 'reveal', and 'list_commitments', providing clear differentiation.
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 a reveal but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.
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.