Retire mass_g of verified credits for a buyer: cheapest-first matching, exactly-once (idempotent on purchase_id), returns a content-addressed offset certificate with per-fill costs. Payment settles via escrow. dry_run=true previews the exact fills/cost without mutating the book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | Yes | ||
| mass_g | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| purchase_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: cheapest-first matching, exactly-once idempotency, content-addressed certificate with per-fill costs, payment via escrow, and dry_run mode. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the tool's side effects and safety.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences with clear bullet points. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists key features efficiently, with no unnecessary words.
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 complexity of financial tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the main aspects but could mention expected input formats (e.g., buyer identifier) or output schema highlights to be fully self-contained. It is still quite complete for enabling correct tool selection and invocation.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It explains mass_g as the amount, purchase_id for idempotency, and dry_run for preview. However, it does not specify formats or constraints for buyer or purchase_id, leaving ambiguity. It adds value over the schema but insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'retire' and identifies the resource 'verified credits for a buyer'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning 'cheapest-first matching' and 'exactly-once (idempotent)' behavior, which are unique to this tool among the listed siblings.
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 explicitly explains the dry_run parameter, advising when to use it to preview without mutation. However, it does not directly compare to alternative tools like buy_offset_budget or indicate when not to use this tool, which is a minor gap.
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 targets a distinct operation (e.g., book vs. list_credit vs. verra_supply; buy_offset vs. buy_offset_budget; certify_disbursement vs. verify_disbursement). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (buy_offset, certify_disbursement, list_credits), but a few are noun phrases (book, disbursement_schedule, net_position, verra_supply). The naming is consistent in snake_case and readable, with only minor deviation from a pure verb-first style.
19 tools cover the full domain of a carbon offset clearinghouse: credit listing, purchase, project registration, disbursement, settlement, verification, and Verra integration. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full CRUD for core entities (e.g., list, buy, verify, delist credits; register and fund projects) plus advanced features (budget-based purchase, certification, settlement, Verra records). Minor gaps like a missing update for projects or credits are acceptable given the domain's constraints.