Verify a declaration in AgentaOS to confirm the five required statements were accepted, helping validate merchant-of-record compliance before payments proceed.
The five statements --accept-declaration attests to
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or write action, not what a 'declaration' verification does, not what state it changes, and not what it returns.
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The one fragment is not front-loaded with any actionable purpose, so it fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' test.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool does and what to expect. It supplies neither, leaving an agent with no way to invoke this correctly within the verification workflow implied by its siblings.
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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning but none is needed.
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 is a cryptic sentence fragment: 'The five statements --accept-declaration attests to'. It gestures at subject matter related to a declaration but never states a verb+resource for this tool, so an agent cannot tell what agenta_verify_declaration actually does or how it differs from siblings like agenta_verify_submit or agenta_verify_status.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is mentioned. The sibling set contains several verify_* tools, and the description gives no basis for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.