Return the index of all CausalLayer Tessera anchor batches, or one batch's full JSON (signed Merkle root, leaves, OpenTimestamps proof reference). FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Optional anchor version, e.g. '2026-05-16-v1.6.4-simulation-calibration'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses that the tool is free and describes dual output modes, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements.
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?
One concise sentence front-loads the main action and includes key details without any wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two possible outputs and their contents; it is mostly complete, though index format is not specified.
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?
While the schema already describes the version parameter, the description adds that omitting it returns an index while providing it returns full JSON, significantly enriching semantics beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool returns either the index of all CausalLayer Tessera anchor batches or the full JSON of one batch, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which have very different purposes.
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 usage for retrieving anchor batch status but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor mention alternative tools for similar tasks.
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: prospective gate, incident extraction, anchor status, issuer registry, jurisdiction overlay, remediation simulation, incident submission (two variants), and certificate verification (two variants). Despite two submission and two verification tools, their descriptions clearly differentiate the inputs and purposes, preventing ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., evaluate_prospective_response, submit_incident, verify_certificate). The verbs are descriptive and the nouns correspond to the domain objects, making the naming predictable and clear.
With 10 tools, the server covers a complex domain (causal liability attribution for AI incidents) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow, and the count feels well-scoped for the functionality offered.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: extraction, submission (structured and trace-based), verification (standard and recompute), a prospective gate, jurisdiction query, remediation simulation, and infrastructure queries (anchor, registry). Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to list or search past incidents/certificates, but the essential operations are present.
