Buyer's carbon position: emitted (from agent-compute-ledger) minus retired. carbon_accountable == true when fully offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | Yes | ||
| emitted_g | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the computation (emitted minus retired) and the condition for carbon_accountable, giving insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short on safety guarantees.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every component adds value with no 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?
For a simple net calculation tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential logic. It does not explain the output schema or usage context, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.
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 adds context by mentioning 'emitted (from agent-compute-ledger)', linking to the emitted_g parameter. However, it does not explain the 'buyer' parameter or the format/units of emitted_g. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 computes the buyer's carbon position by subtracting retired from emitted, with a condition for being fully offset. It conveys the specific purpose but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'buy_offset' or 'book'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'buy_offset' or 'list_credit'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for invocation.
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.