verify_predicate

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral traits: it reads live contract state, is id-free, and warns about scaling mismatch causing verified:false. This is useful caveat-level transparency, though it stops short of describing return shape or other edge-case behaviors.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and information-dense. The primary action is stated first, followed by the id-free differentiation, then the scaling warning and fieldKey instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose, key caveat, and param conditioning. It lacks explicit return value details (e.g., whether the response is a simple boolean or includes proof metadata), but given no output schema, it still gives enough to invoke the tool. Minor gap for a verification tool where result interpretation matters.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical param semantics: threshold must be the same scaled integer the circuit hashed, and fieldKey distinguishes field-bound vs plain proofs. This directly supplements the schema entries and prevents misuse.

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 concrete action: verifying against LIVE Midnight contract state that a ZK predicate proof was recorded true on-chain. It clearly identifies the resource (on-chain state), the verb (verify), and the specific proof form (predicate), while the 'Id-free' distinction separates it from sibling tools like verify_predicate_attestation.

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 gives practical usage context: works for proofs NIGHTGATE never saw (id-free), and explains when to supply or omit fieldKey. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'Id-free' note implies a differentiation from attestation-bound verifiers, making the guidance clear enough.

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