Verify any StillOS notary receipt using its hash: confirms the hash chain is intact and the Ed25519 signature is valid. Read-only, free, no auth.
Independently verifies any StillOS notary receipt by its hash: confirms the hash chain is intact and the Ed25519 signature is valid. Read-only, free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | the receipt_hash returned by claim_verdict or commit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, free, and requires no auth, which is essential behavioral context. It also discloses what verification entails (hash chain and signature). It does not describe the return format, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the verification details and operational traits. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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, read-only verification tool, the description covers purpose, verification mechanism, and operational constraints. It lacks an explicit statement of what the tool returns, but the absence of an output schema and the verb 'confirms' make the intended result reasonably inferable.
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%, and the parameter schema already explains that hash is the receipt_hash returned by claim_verdict or commit. The description adds only 'by its hash,' which reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('verifies') with a specific resource ('StillOS notary receipt') and names the exact mechanism (hash chain integrity + Ed25519 signature validity). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like claim_verdict or file_dispute, which perform different actions.
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 makes the use case clear: verify any notary receipt independently by its hash. It also references receipts returned by claim_verdict or commit in the parameter schema, grounding when the tool is relevant. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose verification tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.