emem

Scan for multi-attester disagreement

emem_memory_contradictions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find where sources disagree on the same memory fact, returning severity and citations so you know when not to trust a single answer.

Instructions

Find where the corpus DISAGREES with itself (algebra: competing evidence). Two or more independent sources can sign different values for the same place, band and time. This tool returns that disagreement with a severity from 0 to 1 and a citation for each disputed fact. It does not pick one value and hide the conflict. It tells you when not to trust a single answer. Read the SCOPE before you quote a zero. By default the tool counts only disagreement between two DIFFERENT attesters. One responder that answers from two upstreams counts only with include_same_attester_sources: true.

When to use: Call this before you rely on a number: 'do the sources agree on X', 'audit this claim'. Use cell_prefix for a region and band for one band family. min_severity removes small differences. Severity depends on the band kind: for a scalar, the spread over the band's range. For a vector, 1 minus the mean cosine. For a category, 1 minus the share of the mode. On a single-responder node, add include_same_attester_sources: true. There, the most likely disagreement is one signer that answers from two providers. Each record names its disagreement_scope. The receipt cites every disputed cid. To measure a pair, use emem_diff. To read the disagrees_with edge, use emem_edges_recall.

Example arguments: {"cell_prefix":"damO","band":"indices.ndvi","min_severity":0.2}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`band`	No	Band key filter (e.g. `indices.ndvi`). Omit to include all bands.
`cell`	No	Alias for `cell_prefix`, and the spelling the rest of the surface uses for a cell64. Send a cell64 you already hold and the scan narrows to that place instead of running over the corpus.
`limit`	No	Max contradictions to return.
`cell64`	No	Alias for `cell_prefix`.
`cell_prefix`	No	A cell64 to scan, or a bytewise prefix of one (e.g. `defi.zb5f9`). Omit to scan the whole corpus up to the scan cap. A full cell64 is a prefix of itself, so passing one narrows the scan to exactly that place.
`min_severity`	No	Severity floor in [0, 1]. 0 = report every disagreement, 1 = only flagrant. Severity scoring is per band kind: scalar (max-min over band range), vector (1 - mean cosine), categorical (1 - mode share).
`window_unix_s`	No	[lo, hi] inclusive Unix-seconds filter on attestations' signed_at, all disagreeing attestations must fall in the window.
`include_same_attester_sources`	No	Also report keys where ONE attester answered the same address from two different upstreams. Default false, which scans only for disagreement between two or more DISTINCT attesters — so on a single-responder corpus a zero here means the narrower question was answered, not that nothing disagrees. Set true and a key qualifies when the facts differ in `derivation.fn_key` or in their `sources[].scheme` set; the same provider re-signed is a refresh, not a disagreement, and stays excluded. Each record carries `disagreement_scope` and a `providers[]` list naming what changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.4.4Oct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / cell

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `cell_prefix`, and the spelling the rest of the surface uses for a cell64. Send a cell64 you already hold and the scan narrows to that place instead of running over the corpus.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / cell64

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `cell_prefix`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / cell_prefix / description

Previous value: -"Bytewise prefix on cell64 (e.g. `defi.zb5f9`). Omit to scan the whole corpus up to the scan cap."New value: +"A cell64 to scan, or a bytewise prefix of one (e.g. `defi.zb5f9`). Omit to scan the whole corpus up to the scan cap. A full cell64 is a prefix of itself, so passing one narrows the scan to exactly that place."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.10Aug 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / include_same_attester_sources

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Also report keys where ONE attester answered the same address from two different upstreams. Default false, which scans only for disagreement between two or more DISTINCT attesters — so on a single-responder corpus a zero here means the narrower question was answered, not that nothing disagrees. Set true and a key qualifies when the facts differ in `derivation.fn_key` or in their `sources[].scheme` set; the same provider re-signed is a refresh, not a disagreement, and stays excluded. Each record carries `disagreement_scope` and a `providers[]` list naming what changed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.1Aug 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / window_unix_s / description

Previous value: -"[lo, hi] inclusive Unix-seconds filter on attestations' signed_at — all disagreeing attestations must fall in the window."New value: +"[lo, hi] inclusive Unix-seconds filter on attestations' signed_at, all disagreeing attestations must fall in the window."

First observedv0.1.0Jul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond that: it warns not to pick a value and hide conflict, cautions to read the SCOPE before quoting a zero, explains the default only counts distinct attesters, and defines what qualifies as disagreement versus a mere refresh. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then mechanics, then alternatives and an example — a sensible ordering for an 8-parameter tool. It is dense and slightly redundant, restating the band-kind severity formula that also appears in the min_severity schema description, but no sentence is truly wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still describes the return shape (severity 0-1, a citation per disputed fact, disagreement_scope on each record, every disputed cid cited in the receipt). Combined with full schema coverage and clear defaults, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the per-band-kind severity formula, the role of cell_prefix/band for narrowing, and the semantics of include_same_attester_sources including the derivation.fn_key and sources[].scheme conditions. The example arguments further clarify how the filters compose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — find where the corpus disagrees with itself — and immediately defines what 'disagreement' means (two or more independent sources signing different values for the same place, band and time). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming emem_diff and emem_edges_recall as different operations, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('do the sources agree on X', 'audit this claim') and routes to alternatives for adjacent needs ('To measure a pair, use emem_diff', 'To read the disagrees_with edge, use emem_edges_recall'). It also states the precise condition for the non-default mode: on a single-responder node, add include_same_attester_sources: true.

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

Deploy Server

Scan for multi-attester disagreement

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools