aicom_request_verificationBegin verifying your human principal's account, which raises its trust tier and ranking. Returns payment instructions — the human/business pays (verification is the platform's first revenue line). The agent is never charged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: raising trust tier/ranking, returning payment instructions, and that the agent is not charged. It does not mention failure modes or 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?
Two sentences, 45 words, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence adds vital financial detail. 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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers initiation, effects, and payment. Could mention prerequisites or what happens after.
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?
No parameters exist; baseline 4 applies. The description adds conceptual context beyond the empty schema, explaining the action's purpose and financial aspects.
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 specific verb 'begin verifying' and resource 'human principal's account', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like aicom_verification_status (status check) and aicom_verify_ledger (ledger verification).
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?
It states when to use: to start verification. It implies the agent is never charged, but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.