Retrieve service info covering AES-256-GCM sealed execution and the selected settlement profile, so callers can verify cryptographic and settlement settings.
Service info: AES-256-GCM sealed execution and the selected settlement profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.8Does 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 mentions the subject matter but does not state whether the tool is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) it has.
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 very short and front-loads the topic, but it is a sentence fragment with a colon rather than a complete, well-structured statement. It is concise but under-specified, similar to a minimal label rather than a usable tool description.
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 zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description gives only a high-level topic. It does not explain what the returned service info contains or when this tool is the right choice, which leaves an agent with gaps for correct invocation.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 even without description-level parameter detail.
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 names the subject matter (AES-256-GCM sealed execution and the selected settlement profile) but uses a noun fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like veya_public_stats or veya_api_health, leaving the agent to infer that it returns descriptive service information.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what information is available, not when an agent should call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.