Independently verifies any StillOS notary receipt by its hash: confirms the hash chain is intact and the Ed25519 signature is valid. Read-only, free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | the receipt_hash returned by claim_verdict or commit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, free, no auth, and the two-step verification process (hash chain integrity and Ed25519 signature).
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 concise sentences: first explains function, second adds behavioral context. No 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and references sibling tools in the parameter description. 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('by its hash' versus schema's 'the receipt_hash').
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?
Clear verb 'verifies' and specific resource 'StillOS notary receipt by its hash'. Distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_verdict by stating 'independently verifies'.
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?
States 'Read-only, free, no auth' providing clear context for safe, cost-free usage. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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.