FREE forever (GR5): recompute a certificate's footprint from its stored workload, compare against the certified numbers, and surface the clearinghouse purchase_id for the independent x402-C verify_retirement check on /offsets/mcp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| certificate_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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool recomputes and compares, suggesting a read-only verification, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'surface the purchase_id' hints at output, but lacks detail on side effects.
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 that conveys functionality, but includes extraneous marketing text ('FREE forever (GR5)') that does not aid tool selection. The core information is present but could be more streamlined.
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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main action (recompute, compare, surface). However, it lacks details on the input parameter and does not explain the output schema's content or format, leaving some gaps for the agent.
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%, but the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'certificate_id' beyond the schema's title. The tool's purpose implies it identifies a certificate, but no format, constraints, or examples are provided.
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 action: recompute a certificate's footprint from its stored workload, compare against certified numbers, and surface the purchase_id. The verb 'verify' matches the tool name, and the resource 'green certificate' is distinct from siblings like 'certify' (which likely creates) and 'list_green_certificates' (which lists).
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is a prerequisite for an independent verification check ('for the independent x402-C verify_retirement check'), but does not contrast with siblings like 'quote_footprint' or 'certify'.
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: quote_footprint computes footprint, green_route ranks backends, certify produces certificates, list_green_certificates lists them, verify_green_certificate verifies them, and describe_agent describes the agent. No overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, list_green_certificates, quote_footprint, verify_green_certificate), but 'certify' is a single verb and 'green_route' is a noun phrase, causing minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering footprint calculation, routing, certification, listing, and verification, the count is well-scoped for a carbon-aware routing service. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool set covers the full workflow: estimate footprint (quote_footprint), choose green backend (green_route), certify offsets (certify), list certificates (list_green_certificates), and verify certificates (verify_green_certificate). The describe_agent tool adds metadata. No obvious gaps.