Verify a Zetesis attestation, confirming an evaluation's claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since it was signed. Use when someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants to independently re-check it.
Args:
attestation_json: the full attestation object as JSON text.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation_json | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the exact integrity check performed: confirming the claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since signing. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists to cover that.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third documents the sole parameter. No unnecessary details or repetition are present.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations already covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and what input to provide.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section is essential. It explains that attestation_json must be 'the full attestation object as JSON text', clarifying both completeness and format, which the bare schema does not convey.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a Zetesis attestation', and explains exactly what is checked — that claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since signing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like evaluate_claim or zetesis_evidence, which address evaluation or evidence gathering rather than attestation integrity.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use when someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants to independently re-check it.' This gives the agent context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tools.
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 distinct role: scoping, evidence retrieval, hosted evaluation, and attestation verification. The descriptions explicitly route the agent between them, so overlap is minimal.
Two tools follow verb_noun naming (evaluate_claim, verify_attestation) while two follow zetesis_ + noun naming (zetesis_scope, zetesis_evidence). The set is readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is not predictable across all tools.
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: scope, evidence, evaluate, and verify. Each tool earns its place and none is redundant.
The tool set covers the full due-diligence workflow from scoping and evidence retrieval to optional hosted evaluation and attestation verification. The token-gated evaluate tool is backed by a complete no-token route, so there are no critical dead ends.