Writes a SHA-256 digest of the sorting log to a Solana devnet memo, creating verifiable proof of what was sorted and when.
Write the SHA-256 of the sorting log into a Solana devnet memo, as proof of what was sorted and when.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the external side effect (writes to Solana devnet, not mainnet) and the payload (SHA-256 of the sorting log), but says nothing about wallet/auth requirements, transaction cost, failure modes, or whether the write is immutable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the rationale second. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (a transaction signature or seal reference) and what prerequisites exist. It covers the what and the why but leaves the agent guessing about the return value and operational requirements.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not clarify where the sorting log is read from, which is the only real ambiguity for a no-argument tool, but there is no schema gap to compensate for.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource: writes the SHA-256 of the sorting log into a Solana devnet memo as a timestamped proof. It's clear what the tool produces, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the closest sibling, verify_seal, which clearly belongs to the same seal lifecycle.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and verify_seal is never mentioned as the complementary read-side tool. The phrase 'as proof of what was sorted and when' implies use at the end of a sorting run, but that is inference only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.