InterAI Risk Oracle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read ('Return') with no side effects implied, but does not disclose potential failure modes, error handling, or any behavior beyond the basic call. The phrase 'well-known location' hints at a standard endpoint but doesn't specify what happens if it's unreachable or the format of the response.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies what is returned and where it's published, but it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., what fields the Card contains) and any error conditions. Since there's no output schema, the description could compensate, but for a standard A2A concept, this might be sufficient for many agents.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and fully covered. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('the A2A Agent Card'), and mentions 'well-known location' implying a standard retrieval. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like oracle.service_descriptor or oracle.discovery_bundle, which may also return similar metadata. It's clear on its own but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does without any context about when it's appropriate (e.g., when you need the agent's identity card vs. discovery bundle). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output contents and the single-fetch nature, but it does not describe return envelope, error behavior, or whether any authentication is needed. 'Return' implies a read operation, yet no explicit safety or side-effect statement is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information about what the bundle contains.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names what is returned and signals this is a one-call discovery action. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit note on expected usage in discovery flows or a note on response structure, but those are minor for this simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is complete and the baseline is 4. The description rightly adds no parameter information because there is nothing to document.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('single-fetch discovery bundle'), then lists its contents: interfaces, runtime mode, schemas, and sample payloads. This content list distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle.service_descriptor or oracle.agent_card.

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 given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions under which a different oracle.* tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and content list.

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

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation by saying 'Return' and labels the data as 'public,' implying no authentication or side effects. It does not detail output structure or errors, but for a zero-parameter metadata fetch this is a reasonably complete behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information about scope or content, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter, public metadata tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool returns and for whom. It could specify the response format more explicitly, but the simple nature of the tool makes this a minor gap rather than a significant omission.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the empty input. The description adds relevant context about the domains of the returned data (pricing, trial, idempotency, top-up), which is more than necessary for parameter 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 begins with a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('public pricing, trial, idempotency and top-up metadata'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like oracle.verify_response or oracle.get_trust_receipt, which clearly relate to verification and trust artifacts rather than pricing.

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 phrase 'for self-serve integration' provides a general context for when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Resolve' suggests a read-only lookup, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, failure behavior, authentication requirements, or what the returned representation contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan, though it sacrifices some helpful detail 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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the purpose and the key input. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return value, usage context, and relationship to sibling verification tools unspecified.

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% and the schema only defines 'receipt_id' as a string. The description adds only that the ID is used to resolve the receipt, which is largely restating the parameter name. It does not explain the expected format, source, or semantics of the receipt ID.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve') and resource ('canonical public trust receipt representation') with the lookup key ('by receipt ID'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as verify_trust_receipt_signature.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a receipt ID and need the canonical public representation. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., verify_trust_receipt_signature) should be chosen instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the listed metadata categories hint at the response content. But it does not mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or any operational constraints. This is adequate for a zero-parameter getter but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the object, and the key metadata domains. Every word adds information and there is no redundant filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably states what the tool returns and which metadata aspects are covered. It could go deeper on the descriptor's structure or format, but for tool selection and invocation, the agent has enough context to know this is the full service descriptor.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead it usefully describes what the returned descriptor contains. There is no schema parameter coverage to compensate for.

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 specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('agent-oriented AI service descriptor'), and it enumerates the metadata categories included (billing, trust, A2A, endpoint). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle.get_pricing or oracle.agent_card, which target narrower or different resources.

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 explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to alternatives. However, the descriptor's scope is implied by the metadata categories, suggesting it is the comprehensive service-level metadata tool versus specialized siblings. This is usable but relies on inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention a key side effect ('Bill one prepaid') and the return types, which are relevant behavioral traits. However, it omits other important behaviors such as idempotency, error conditions, or whether the verification is permanent. The mention of 'signed trust receipt' hints at cryptographic verification but does not explain its role.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and expected outcomes. It avoids fluff and is easy to read. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity might be seen as under-specification, but conciseness itself is strong.

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 high complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage flow, or how results should be interpreted beyond the three verdicts. The lack of even basic parameter descriptions leaves agents unable to construct valid calls reliably.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. For 7 parameters (including mode, action, domain, policy, context, use_case, idempotency_key), not a single one is explained or mapped to the tool's behavior. An agent has no help understanding what 'action' or 'policy' should contain, which is critical for a verification tool.

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 states a specific action ('Bill one prepaid autonomous_execution verification') and explicitly lists the possible outcomes ('allow, review_required, or block') plus additional outputs ('policy signals and a signed trust receipt'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_batch (batch operation) and verify_trust_receipt_signature (signature verification).

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 provides no information on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools like verify_batch or verify_response. An agent would have to infer the use case from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important side effect: billing against the authenticated account, plus prepaid specifics and the 100-item limit. However, it does not describe idempotency behavior, partial failure handling, or consequences of insufficient prepaid credit.

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?

A single sentence that is compact and front-loaded: it states the operation first, then the result and constraint. There is no filler or repetition.

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 a complex input schema with oneOf branches and an idempotency_key, and no output schema, but the description gives almost no guidance on item shapes, idempotency semantics, or failure modes. It is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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 for the complex items and idempotency_key parameters. It only mentions 'items' and the 100-item limit; it does not explain the item oneOf structure, required fields, or the role of idempotency_key.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bill') with a clear resource ('one prepaid batch verification') and outcome ('return trust receipts for up to 100 items'). This distinguishes it from sibling single-item tools like verify_response and verify_autonomous_action by emphasizing the batch nature and receipt output.

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 implies batch usage through 'up to 100 items' and the billing context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as verify_response or verify_autonomous_action. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool is a legacy alias and performs verification, but it does not explain what the verification returns, whether side effects or auth are involved, or how the two oneOf call patterns behave differently. The 'legacy' label is useful context, but too little behavioral substance is 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 one tight sentence with no filler, and the most important routing information ('prefer oracle.verify_autonomous_action') is placed at the end after establishing legacy context. It is concise, though arguably too short to carry the full explanatory burden for such a complex schema.

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 9 parameters, a mutually exclusive oneOf schema, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does provide the legacy/alternative context, but it omits the two invocation patterns, modes, and expected results. An agent would need external knowledge or trial and error to call this reliably.

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%, and the description only implies that 'prompt' and 'response' are the objects of verification. It says nothing about the use_case/action branch, the mode enum, idempotency_key, or policy/context semantics. This is minimal compensation for a complex oneOf schema, so the description adds little parameter-level value.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Legacy compatibility alias for prompt/response verification', giving a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes it from siblings by pointing to oracle.verify_autonomous_action as the preferred alternative. It stops short of a 5 because it uses the nominal 'verification' rather than a direct verb phrase, but the intent is clear.

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 states when to use this tool versus the alternative: it is for 'existing MCP clients' and legacy compatibility, while new integrations should prefer oracle.verify_autonomous_action. This gives an agent a concrete decision rule without needing to inspect either schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'verifies' a payload, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether there are side effects, what it returns (e.g., success/failure format), or any auth/permission requirements. For a security-related verification tool, this is critically underwritten. The description adds little beyond the verb, so it scores 2.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it efficient. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though that is a content issue rather than structure. The layout is clear and front-loaded, so it earns a 4.

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 a non-trivial input schema: a nested object (receipt), conditional requirements (either receipt or receipt_id), a signature_alg enum, and no output schema. Given this complexity and the absence of annotations, the one-line description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain how to provide the receipt, what signature_alg implies, or what the tool returns. An agent would be guessing on parameter relationships. This is a significant incompleteness, so it scores 2.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (receipt, signature, receipt_id, signature_alg, signed_payload). Since the schema itself provides only types and an enum but no semantics (e.g., what 'signed_payload' is, how 'receipt' relates to 'receipt_id', or what 'signature_alg' does), the description fails to compensate. The agent receives no guidance on how to construct a valid call, so this is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'signed trust receipt payload', and adds a specific condition 'when signing is enabled on the server'. This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_autonomous_action, verify_batch, and verify_response, which target different payload types. The purpose is concrete and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for use: only when signing is enabled on the server. This implies the tool is not intended for unauthenticated or unsigned scenarios, giving the agent a conditional trigger. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when signing is disabled), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance. It earns a 4 for context but lacks explicit when-not/alternatives.

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