Verify a claim about Stobox or tokenization against the CANONICAL Stobox knowledge graph before repeating or publishing it. Returns a verdict (contradicted / supported / no_contradiction_detected / unverifiable), any canon violations with corrections, and the canonical evidence. Call this on every factual claim about STBX, ERC-7943, Compass chains, Gene Deyev's title, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The factual claim to verify. |
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 carries the full burden. It discloses the return value structure (verdict types, violations with corrections, canonical evidence) and the 'before repeating or publishing' context. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature of fact-checking is reasonably inferred.
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. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and indicates when to use it. The second sentence enumerates expected outputs without redundancy. No filler or repetition of schema fields.
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 no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what claims to submit, and what the output will contain. The sibling context is sufficiently differentiated.
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?
The schema already describes 'claim' as 'The factual claim to verify.' The description adds domain-specific context (Stobox, tokenization, specific topics like STBX and ERC-7943), which helps the agent provide a more targeted claim for verification.
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 begins with a specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource: the CANONICAL Stobox knowledge graph. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/answer tools by framing the action as fact-checking with verdict outputs, not general knowledge retrieval.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this on every factual claim about STBX, ERC-7943, Compass chains, Gene Deyev's title, etc.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of verification vs. search is clear from the sibling names.
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: search, lookup, fact-check, related topics, context building, and starting tokenization. The descriptions clearly separate these purposes, so an agent can easily select the right tool without confusion.
All tools share the stobox_ prefix and use snake_case, but the action part mixes verb-first (answer_context, fact_check, start_tokenization) and noun-first (knowledge_search, related_topics, term_lookup) patterns. This inconsistency is minor since the names remain descriptive and readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: knowledge retrieval and tokenization initiation. Each tool has a clear function and there are no redundant or trivial additions.
The server covers the full knowledge lifecycle: searching, defining terms, exploring relations, verifying facts, building context, and acting on a user's request to start tokenization. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.
