Validate an OpenTimestamps (OTS) proof against original data or hash to confirm a file's Bitcoin blockchain timestamp.
Verify an OTS proof against original data or hash
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otsData | Yes | OTS proof data (hex string) | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm used | sha256 |
| originalData | No | Original data to verify against | |
| originalHash | No | Original hash to verify against (hex string) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about the verification outcome (boolean, timestamp confidence, error conditions) or that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, leaving the agent to infer behavior.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description should explain what verification yields (e.g., valid/invalid, blockchain confirmation, timestamp). It omits this entirely, and also leaves the either/or relationship between originalData and originalHash unexplained.
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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a small hint that originalData and originalHash are alternative verification inputs, but does not clarify their mutual exclusivity or the default algorithm behavior beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Verify) and resource (an OTS proof) with the two input modes it accepts. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like load_proof and get_proof_info, but never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no contrast with the six sibling tools. The 'original data or hash' phrasing hints at input alternatives but is a parameter note, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.