mandate_draft_schemaReturns the v1 Capital Authority Mandate draft template (v0 accepted too, and its template is included), the never-delegable act list, and the digest convention, so an agent can construct a draft its principal will mint at capital.new. A draft file wraps the draft as {mandate_draft, digest:{alg:'sha-256', hex}}; key order in the draft is part of the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses significant behavioral details: v0 acceptance, inclusion of v0 template, output wrapper format, and that key order is part of the document. These are non-obvious and crucial for correct usage.
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 dense sentences, no filler. Each sentence adds necessary information: what is returned and how to wrap it. Excellent front-loading of purpose.
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?
This is a simple retrieval tool with no input. The description fully explains what it returns, how to use it, and critical formatting details. There is no ambiguity left for the agent.
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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't; it correctly focuses on the output and usage.
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 explicitly states the tool 'Returns the v1 Capital Authority Mandate draft template' and lists its components (never-delegable act list, digest convention). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mandate_draft_verify, which verifies drafts.
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?
It states the tool is for constructing a draft 'so an agent can construct a draft its principal will mint at capital.new'. This implies the usage context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond 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 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.