Recompute the disbursement certificate hash chain and confirm whole-book conservation of disbursed proceeds. Any party can audit disbursements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool recomputes a hash chain and confirms conservation, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects. The word 'verify' suggests non-destructive, but lacks explicit safety or permission details.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and end with accessibility. No unnecessary words or tangents.
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 no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and who can use it. It could mention the output format or more about the hash chain, but overall 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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's function without needing parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 verifies disbursements by recomputing the hash chain and confirming conservation. It uses specific verbs ('recompute', 'confirm') and resource ('disbursement certificate hash chain'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'certify_disbursement' and 'verify_certificate'.
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 any party can audit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_certificate' or 'certify_disbursement'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.
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.