veya_verify_commitment_onchain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially delivers by revealing the mechanism: it reads a transaction's logs and issues one eth_call per CommitmentStored event, implying RPC dependency and potentially multiple chained calls. It omits what happens when the tx contains no such events, whether the tx must be mined, and any failure semantics.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is dense jargon (eth_call, commitments(digest), CommitmentStored) that trades clarity for brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, so the description should explain what is returned (a boolean? per-event commitment digests?) and it does not. For a verification tool whose result shape determines the agent's next step, this is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description. The phrase 'from a tx' loosely ties to txHash, but the description never states that txHash must be a 0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash (the schema only enforces minLength 66), nor that it is required.

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 a concrete mechanism (parse Veya.sol events from a tx, then eth_call commitments(digest) per CommitmentStored), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it describes the implementation steps rather than the outcome (what 'verify' actually yields), and never distinguishes it from close siblings like veya_commitment_exists or veya_verify_transaction.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before or after veya_store_commitment, or when veya_commitment_exists is the cheaper alternative. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from sibling names.

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