Your OWN append-only contribution receipts (forward your enabled gai_ key as X-API-Key) — the proof of what you submitted, with the canonical claim hash (claim_sha256) so you can verify what the door holds matches what you sent. Own rows only, no staff fields. Read-only. GET /api/v1/contribute/receipts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "contribute_receiptsDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, append-only nature, ownership scope, and the required API key. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple list endpoint with output schema, the key behavioral traits are covered.
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 dense but effective paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose (own receipts, proof), includes the hash detail, and ends with the endpoint. It could be split into cleaner sentences, but every phrase adds value.
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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, scope, and read-only nature. It doesn't explain return structure, but the output schema handles that. Missing pagination guidance is minor given the schema defaults.
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 adds nothing about limit/offset. While the parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, nor does it mention pagination behavior or maximum limits.
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?
Description names a specific resource (contribution receipts), the verb (GET), and the exact scope ('Your OWN', 'no staff fields'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like contribute_submissions by emphasizing ownership and the claim hash, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.
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?
Clear usage context is provided: this is for retrieving proof of your own submissions and verifying them via claim_sha256. It also states the auth requirement (X-API-Key). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'Own rows only' exclusion effectively disambiguates from broader listing tools.
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.