list_my_receiptsList your workspace receipts filtered by outcome, policy, model, or date range. Requires your aqta_ key as Bearer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows, default 25. | |
| model | No | Only receipts for this model. | |
| since | No | ISO timestamp lower bound. | |
| until | No | ISO timestamp upper bound. | |
| policy | No | Only receipts where this policy ran, e.g. pii_scan. | |
| outcome | No | Only receipts with this outcome. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the authentication requirement and the filtering capability, which are useful. However, it does not disclose any potential pagination behavior, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data (no output schema exists). The description adds some value but is not rich.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and filtering capability, then adds the authentication requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of receipt objects, metadata), nor does it mention default behavior for limit or pagination. The tool is simple, so a score of 3 reflects that the description leaves some gaps for the agent to infer.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions generic filtering options but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions (e.g., limit defaults to 25, ISO format for timestamps). No extra value is added to the parameters.
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 'List your workspace receipts', specifying the verb and resource. It also lists the filtering dimensions (outcome, policy, model, date range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_receipt or decode_receipt that serve different purposes.
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 mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires your aqta_ key as Bearer'), which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vs. verify), relying on the sibling names and general context. Minimal guidance on when-not-to-use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct jobs: decode, verify, get, list, summarize. The only mildly overlapping pairs are decode_receipt vs explain_attestation_format and verify_receipt vs verify_evidence_pack, but the scopes are well described.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun: decode_receipt, get_public_key, list_my_receipts, verify_receipt. workspace_summary breaks the pattern by being noun-only, but the rest are consistent enough to be predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused attestation and receipt-verification server. Each tool serves a distinct operation from fetching samples and keys to decoding, verifying, listing, and summarizing receipts.
The read/verify workflow is well covered: format explanation, decoding, single-receipt verification, pack verification, sample artifacts, workspace listing, and summary. The main gap is that transparency proofs can be retrieved but there is no corresponding tool for independently verifying a transparency proof.