check_zkverify_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, and it does well. It states the underlying contract reads (proofsAggregations and verifyProofAggregation), what each returns ('returns the Merkle root if posted' and 'get a definitive on-chain bool'), and provides the exact contract addresses for both networks. It doesn't detail error handling or exact return structures, but for a read-only check this is sufficient.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence earns its place: purpose, two modes, contract addresses, and network support. It is well-structured with clear mode separation, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and two modes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, two modes, two networks) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both modes, the required parameters for each, the network options with contract addresses, and the expected return values (Merkle root or bool). Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds relational meaning by explaining which parameters belong to which mode and that leaf, merklePath, leafCount, and index are only required for full verification. It also ties parameters to the RPC source ('Obtained via aggregate_statementPath RPC'), which enhances understanding beyond 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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Check whether a zkVerify proof aggregation has been posted to Horizen by reading the zkVerify aggregation proxy contract.' It specifies two distinct modes with concrete on-chain calls, making it unambiguous and clearly differentiated from sibling tools that deal with integration/chain info, contract addresses, and price feeds.

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 explicitly details when to use each mode: 'Two modes: (1) existence check — provide domainId and aggregationId only; ... (2) full verification — also provide leaf, merklePath, leafCount, and index.' It also clarifies the network selection with 'Supports both mainnet... and testnet' and the default. This gives direct, actionable guidance without needing to infer.

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