grid402_verify

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does make clear this is a verification pass over existing data (no mutation implied) and pins the algorithm to secp256k1, which is real behavioral context. It does not state what a failure looks like, whether the call is purely local/computational, or what the outcome conveys to the agent.

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 verb first and the qualifying detail (algorithm, key name, scope) after. Nothing redundant or padding-like.

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 one-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should indicate what the verification yields (e.g., a boolean validity flag or diagnostic details on mismatch). That return-value information is absent, leaving a meaningful gap even though the input side is fully specified by the schema.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains that 'payload' is the serialized JSON response containing _oracle_proof. The description's reference to _oracle_proof reinforces but does not extend the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Valida a integridade matematica') and a specific resource ('prova criptografica de oraculo (_oracle_proof) secp256k1 em uma resposta do Grid402'), naming the exact artifact being checked. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling data-lookup tools (cnpj, forex, dns, ssl, etc.), which retrieve data rather than verify it.

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 parenthetical '(gratuito)' implies the tool applies only to responses from the free tier and only when an _oracle_proof key is present, which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit statement of preconditions, no guidance on what to do for paid-tier responses, and no mention of alternatives or what to do if verification fails.

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