evidence_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool rebuilds leaves, folds proofs, compares against on-chain Relay.merkleRoots, re-binds Web2Json facts, and 'trusts nothing in the bundle, including its own hash.' It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but it gives a detailed account of what the tool actually does.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding real value: the core operation, the verification mechanics, the trust model, and the usage context. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids filler.

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?

For a complex verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is notably complete: it explains the verification algorithm, the on-chain comparison, the trust model, and when to call it. The main gap is not describing what the tool returns or how failure is signaled, but the call itself is well specified.

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. The description adds some contextual meaning, such as the bundle coming from evidence_bundle and the re-binding behavior, but it mostly restates what the schema already says.

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 states a highly specific verb and resource: 'Verify an evidence bundle from scratch' and explains the verification pipeline. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling evidence_bundle by calling itself 'the receiving end,' so an agent can distinguish producer from verifier.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'This is the receiving end: run it on a bundle someone hands you.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus evidence_bundle, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fdc_verify_web2json or fdc_verify_settlement.

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