Generate a cryptographic proof for text, canonical JSON, or a receipt hash; anchor on-chain only when a product API key and payer key are provided.
Prove text, canonical JSON, or a receipt hash. Anchor writes only when a product API key and a payer key are passed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| anchor | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| txHash | No | ||
| environmentId | No | ||
| payerPrivateKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the anchor write path is gated on a product API key plus a payer key. Beyond that it is silent on permissions, whether the plain prove path is read-only, what gets written on-chain, and failure 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?
Two tightly written, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the input forms lead and the anchor caveat follows. It is terse to the edge of under-specification, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 seven-parameter tool with zero required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description omits too much: the prove-vs-verify contract, environmentId, key requirements for non-anchor calls, and return shape are all unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names text, canonical JSON, receipt hash, anchor, and both keys — mapping to roughly six of seven parameters. It adds no format or validity semantics and never mentions environmentId, so the compensation is partial.
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 ('Prove') and three concrete input forms (text, canonical JSON, receipt hash), so the agent knows what it operates on. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like veya_anchor_proof or veya_verify_proof_api, and 'Prove' alone leaves the create-vs-verify ambiguity partly unresolved.
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 only conditional guidance is the anchoring clause ('Anchor writes only when...'), which is behavioral rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to pick this over veya_anchor_proof, veya_verify_proof_api, or veya_list_proofs, and no prerequisites or exclusions for the non-anchor path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.