Verify a commitment or anchor transaction by signature through the product API. Registration transactions return NOT_VEYA_TX because they are not proofs.
Check a commitment or anchor transaction through the product API. A registration transaction is not a proof and returns NOT_VEYA_TX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes |
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 full burden, and it does disclose one concrete behavioral trait: the NOT_VEYA_TX error result for non-proof transactions. However, it omits read-only/safety profile, auth requirements, and what a successful response contains.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveat. No filler, though 'through the product API' is slightly vague.
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 and no annotations, so the description must explain return semantics; it only covers the failure case (NOT_VEYA_TX) and says nothing about the success shape or how to interpret a positive verification. For a verification tool this leaves the agent under-informed.
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% for the single required 'signature' parameter. The description implies the input is a transaction signature but gives no format, source, or length guidance, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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+resource: 'Check a commitment or anchor transaction'. The phrase 'through the product API' distinguishes it from on-chain siblings like veya_verify_commitment_onchain, but it never disambiguates against the very similarly named veya_verify_transaction, leaving sibling separation incomplete.
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 note that 'A registration transaction is not a proof and returns NOT_VEYA_TX' gives a useful when-not signal, but no alternative tool is named for the cases this rejects (e.g., where to verify a registration transaction instead). Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.