zk_proof

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions pricing and an API endpoint, which implies an external call and cost, but does not describe what happens during verification (e.g., response format, error handling, or side effects). The behavioral profile is insufficiently disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but includes pricing and an API URL that may not be essential for tool selection. It is efficient but could be more structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should minimally describe the return format. It does not. Given the tool's simplicity, important details like what the result indicates (valid/invalid) are missing, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, with a single parameter 'proof' described as '证明数据' (proof data). The tool description adds no further meaning or context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 includes Chinese for 'zero-knowledge proof verification', which clearly states the tool's action and resource. However, the use of Chinese may reduce clarity for non-Chinese-speaking agents. Among the sibling tools, it is unique in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions what it does and pricing, with no context about prerequisites or situations where it is appropriate.

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