Verify Merkle proofs, inclusion blocks, and execution receipts of agent transactions. Confirm onchain execution integrity through cryptographic proof validation.
Cryptographically verify the Merkle proof, inclusion block, and execution receipt of an agent transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | ||
| tx_hash | No | ||
| chain_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that verification happens, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on a failed proof, whether any state is written, or what authentication/context requirements exist.
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, tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. It loses a point because it is so minimal that it omits parameter and usage context that would make it genuinely helpful.
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 a sparse schema with no required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is not complete enough. It does not say how to obtain or supply the Merkle proof, whether task_id or tx_hash is expected as the primary lookup key, or how chain_id factors in. The output schema covers return values but not invocation prerequisites.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining task_id, tx_hash, or chain_id. It does not clarify which identifier is sufficient, why both are nullable, or how chain_id is used. An agent has almost no basis for choosing parameter values.
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 a specific action ('Cryptographically verify') and a specific resource ('Merkle proof, inclusion block, and execution receipt of an agent transaction'). This distinguishes it from the sibling operations like keeper_execute_tx, keeper_agent_balance, and keeper_x402_settle.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor does it mention what prior step produces the proof or receipt. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.