Generate a canonical JSON hash (SHA-256) that matches Python CHP digests, enabling consistent verification and auditing of finance actions.
SHA-256 over float-aware canonical JSON (CHP §3.1) — matches Python consensus-hardening-protocol digests for the same object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | JSON-serializable value to hash |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm (SHA-256), the canonicalization method, and the consistency with Python digests. It doesn't mention edge cases or determinism, but for a pure hash function, this is reasonable. A minor gap is the lack of explicit side-effect-free declaration.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core operation (SHA-256 over float-aware canonical JSON) and adds the interoperability detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to specify the return format (e.g., hex string, base64, binary) or error behavior for invalid inputs. An agent cannot be sure how to interpret the result, which is a significant gap for a hash function. Given the simplicity, this should have been included.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'value' with the description 'JSON-serializable value to hash'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't clarify format, size limits, or serialization specifics beyond what's in 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?
The description clearly states the tool computes a SHA-256 hash over float-aware canonical JSON, referencing CHP §3.1 and matching Python consensus-hardening-protocol digests. This specifies the verb (compute hash), resource (canonical JSON), and the exact algorithm, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like chp_version.
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 for cross-language consistency (matching Python digests) within the CHP protocol. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, there are no similar sibling tools, so the context is sufficient. It could be more explicit about typical use cases, but the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.