trust_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does add behavioral context by naming supported chains and explaining the challenge-signature prerequisite. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is a write/mutation, what happens upon success, or any side effects, which is important for an identity verification action.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. It immediately states what the tool does, lists supported chains, and provides the critical workflow note. No superfluous words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the prerequisite challenge flow and supported chains, but does not explain how to choose the relevant parameters for a specific chain (e.g., that only parameters for the selected chain should be provided). The schema covers individual parameters but not the overall selection logic, leaving a gap for this complex tool.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the signature parameter to the trust_challenge flow, which is not explicitly in the schema descriptions. It also lists supported chains, but this duplicates the enum.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'your identity on a blockchain or platform', and lists the supported chains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust_lookup (which likely reads verifications) and trust_challenge (which provides challenges).

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 instructs that for chains requiring a signature, one must first use trust_challenge to get a challenge, sign it, then call this tool with the signature. This provides clear context for when to use this tool and a prerequisite workflow, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other use cases like trust_lookup.

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