BLAKE3 fingerprint of an ML-DSA public key hex
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"publicKeyHex": "<publicKeyHex>"
},
"name": "veya_pq_fingerprint"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicKeyHex | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the operation is read-only/pure, whether the fingerprint is deterministic, what encoding or length the fingerprint output takes, or what happens with malformed key input — all relevant for a crypto primitive.
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?
It is a single sentence fragment with zero padding, so it is maximally concise. However, it is under-specified rather than well-structured, and lacks an explicit verb to anchor the operation.
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 cryptographic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state the return format and that the call has no side effects. Neither is covered, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by identifying the sole input as an ML-DSA public key in hex, but adds no detail on expected length, curve/parameter-set variants, or format validation beyond the schema's minLength.
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 names a specific operation (BLAKE3 fingerprint) on a specific resource (an ML-DSA public key hex), which is far more precise than the bare name. It implicitly separates the tool from the generic sibling veya_hash_blake3 by tying it to the ML-DSA/PQ domain, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this instead of veya_hash_blake3, veya_pq_verify, or the other PQ siblings, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line phrase.
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.