Admin operation: remove a credit from the active fill path while retaining its listing and retirement history for audit. Idempotent for an already-delisted credit. Gateway state-change authentication is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| credit_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 covers key behaviors: it's idempotent for already-delisted credits, retains audit history, and requires authentication. This gives the agent a good understanding of side effects and constraints.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
While the description covers the core operation and the output schema exists, the lack of parameter details leaves it incomplete. For a simple tool, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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%, and the description provides no details about the 'credit_id' or 'reason' parameters. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which is a critical gap.
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: 'remove a credit from the active fill path while retaining its listing and retirement history for audit.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_credit'.
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 notes it's an 'Admin operation' and requires 'Gateway state-change authentication', providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buy_offset' or 'verify_retirement', and lacks exclusion criteria.
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.