AOTrust - PDR Notarization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server verifies on-chain payment and returns job_id, but it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or security implications. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is 4 sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action ('Submit'), then prerequisites, then server action, then return value and next step. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema. The description covers the main flow and return value (job_id) but misses details on optional parameters and error behavior. It is adequately complete for a sequential workflow step but lacks depth.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only indirectly explains tx_hash and work_hash (from prerequisite context). It does not explain metadata, agent_sig, agent_pubkey, or artifact_uri, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for all 6 parameters.

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 verb 'Submit', the resource 'work artifact', and the context 'on-chain notarisation (NEAR_DIRECT payment path)'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by placing it as step 3 in the flow: quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify.

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 provides explicit prerequisites (sending NEAR and providing tx_hash) and tells the agent to use notary_verify for polling. It implicitly explains when to use this tool (after payment, before verification) but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step payment protocol (402 response, then x-payment header) and the outcome (signed PDR). While it doesn't detail side effects or auth requirements, the payment flow is well-explained. A minor gap is that it doesn't state whether the tool modifies state beyond creating the PDR.

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?

The description is two sentences long with a critical note front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the main purpose and the key restriction. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage caveat), but overall it is concise and scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description only mentions 'signed PDR' without details on its format or contents. The complex payment workflow is adequately explained, but the lack of annotation and only partial output description leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and response.

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 input schema has 100% coverage per context signals, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions work_hash in the context of the HTTP workflow, adding minimal extra semantics. It does not explain agent_sig or agent_pubkey beyond the schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little value over 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?

Clearly states the action (notarize), resource (work artifact), and payment mechanism (x402 USDC on Base). The name and description differentiate from sibling notary_notarize by specifying 'paid'. However, the critical restriction 'DISCOVERY ONLY — cannot be called via MCP' is prominently noted, which slightly reduces clarity as it adds a usage constraint beyond the core purpose.

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 states that the tool is for discovery only and cannot be invoked via MCP, providing exact HTTP instructions (POST endpoints, headers) for actual use. This clearly tells the agent when NOT to use the tool and provides a precise alternative workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a time-limited quote (600 seconds), provides a sink account for payment, and mentions the PDR schema version. It does not discuss idempotency or side effects, but the flow context helps. Minor room for improvement.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then flow context. Compact and efficient with no unnecessary 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?

Describes the output well and places the tool in a flow, but lacks parameter explanations and error scenarios. An output schema exists, so return details are covered, but the parameter gap hurts completeness.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'work_hash' and 'pdr_version' are not defined, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format. The description fails to add value beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Request' and resource 'a notarisation quote'. Describes the return values and explicitly positions itself as Step 1 of a flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools notary_notarize, notary_notarize_paid, and notary_verify.

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 describes the tool as the first step in a defined flow: 'quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify'. This tells the agent when to use it (before payment and notarization) and implicitly suggests not to use it when already at later steps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior, return types (status, PDR record with size and signature algorithm), and that the status transitions from pending to anchored. Could mention idempotency or rate limits, but good overall.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail. The description covers status transitions, PDR record content, and signature verification. Could elaborate on error conditions, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is only one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema coverage. The description mentions 'by job_id' but does not explain what it is or where to obtain it. For a single required param, this is adequate but not excellent.

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 it verifies a notarisation by job_id, lists return statuses and what happens when anchored. It explicitly places itself as step 4 of the flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explains it is step 4 of the flow (quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify) and that it can be polled until status changes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.