verify_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it verifies a signature using HMAC-SHA256 against a server-configured secret (from an environment variable), returns a structured result with validity and parsed payload, and clarifies that the secret is never passed as a tool argument. This covers key operational aspects without contradictions.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, behavior, and output. Every part of the sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (verification with cryptographic operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the verification process, secret handling, and return structure. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or the format of the parsed JSON payload, which is not covered by structured fields.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (raw_body and signature) adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the secret is from an environment variable and not a tool argument, but does not provide additional syntax or format details for the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('AlgoVoi webhook HMAC-SHA256 signature'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on webhook verification rather than payment or challenge operations. It explicitly mentions what the tool does: verifying a signature against a server secret.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to verify webhook signatures) and implicitly excludes usage for other verification tasks like payments or proofs handled by sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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