WITHDRAWN (2026-08-09). This tool does not submit any blockchain transaction and creates no on-chain anchor or proof; it returns a non-success withdrawal notice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fact | Yes | The fact to anchor | |
| symbol | No | Related token symbol (optional) | |
| framework | No | Framework context: trust_layer, mica, dora | trust_layer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses that no blockchain transaction occurs, no anchor/proof is created, and a non-success notice is returned. This is complete transparency.
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?
Single sentence with the key signal 'WITHDRAWN' front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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For a withdrawn tool, the description explains its current behavior, lack of side effects, and return value. No output schema needed for such a simple notice.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.
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The description clearly states the tool is withdrawn and returns a non-success withdrawal notice, which is a specific behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it no longer performs anchoring.
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?
Explicitly notes 'WITHDRAWN' and that it creates no on-chain anchor, implying it should not be used for anchoring. It does not name alternatives though.
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.