cardano_key_verification_hashCompute the hash of a Cardano verification key file and return it as a hex string, enabling on-chain key identification and verification.
Get the hash of a verification key.
Args:
verification_key_file (string): Path to the verification key file
Returns: The key hash as hex string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification_key_file | Yes | Path to the verification key file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the return format (hex string), which is useful, but does not describe error handling or file validity constraints.
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 short and front-loaded, stating the purpose before listing arguments and return value. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though the Args section merely restates the schema.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the key return value despite no output schema. It omits some operational details, but annotations and schema already provide what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and the description repeats the schema text for verification_key_file without adding further semantics. With the schema already documenting the sole parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: get the hash of a verification key. It is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar hash tools such as cardano_address_key_hash.
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 only the operation and its arguments, with no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing a valid verification key file or when hashing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.