ceremony_infoReturns where and how a mandate draft becomes an instrument. Minting and revocation are human ceremonies at https://capital.new — agents draft and verify; humans authorize. v1 has no signing rail: signing arrives with the portable credential in a later version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the name: minting and revocation are 'human ceremonies at https://capital.new', and the version limitation about signing rails is disclosed. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of what the tool returns and its current constraints.
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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's core function, the second provides the ceremony details with a URL, and the third discloses a version limitation. No filler, front-loaded with the most important information.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, where and how the ceremony happens, and notes a key limitation. Nothing necessary is missing given 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns (the ceremony process) but doesn't reference parameters, which is unnecessary since there are none. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%.
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 opens with 'Returns where and how a mandate draft becomes an instrument', a specific verb ('returns') and resource (ceremony/mandate flow). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings 'mandate_draft_schema' and 'mandate_draft_verify' by focusing on the human authorization ceremony rather than schema or verification.
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 implies usage context: 'agents draft and verify; humans authorize' clarifies the role of this tool in the workflow, and 'v1 has no signing rail' warns of a current limitation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, though the purpose distinction is clear enough.
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 addresses a distinct aspect: ceremony_info explains the human process, mandate_draft_schema provides the template and rules, and mandate_draft_verify performs cryptographic verification. No functional overlap.
Tool names are descriptive but not consistently patterned. ceremony_info and mandate_draft_schema follow a noun_noun structure, while mandate_draft_verify uses a noun_verb structure. The inconsistent placement of the verb makes the set less predictable, though names are still clear and readable.
With 3 tools covering schema, verification, and ceremony guidance, the count is well-scoped for the narrow domain of mandate draft handling. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the agent-side workflow: obtaining the schema, verifying drafts, and understanding the ceremony. A dedicated schema-validation tool is absent, but the schema tool effectively enables agent-side construction and validation, leaving only a minor gap.