verify_proof

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification is on-chain against a deployed verifier contract and that it returns valid:true if valid. However, it does not describe behavior on invalid proof (e.g., returns false or reverts), nor any potential side effects, gas costs, or read/write nature.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second explains usage and output. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the single-parameter input with 100% schema coverage and a clear output description, the description is largely complete for the task. It covers input format, automation, and expected success output. However, it lacks details on failure behavior (invalid proof) and whether the operation is a transaction or static call, which are minor gaps for a verification step.

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 100%, and the description repeats the schema's advice to pass the full result object without extracting fields. This adds no new information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description reinforces the correct usage pattern, but does not elaborate on the nested fields' semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify a ZK proof on-chain against the deployed verifier contract.' It specifies the verb (verify) and the resource (ZK proof), and identifies it as an optional step in a sequence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_proof, though the context implies it follows generate_proof.

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 description explicitly instructs to pass the full generate_proof result object directly and explains automatic extraction of verification info, giving clear usage guidance. However, it lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tools, such as when off-chain verification might be preferred, and only states it's optional without conditions.

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