List the receipt hash-chain for an agent_id, newest first (id, action, timestamp, sequence, hashes, verifyUrl). Use to audit everything a given agent has attested. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max receipts (default 25, max 100). | |
| agent_id | Yes | The agent whose receipts to list. |
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 the tool lists receipts and the fields returned, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result structure. Every word is useful, and the term 'FREE' is minor but harmless. No wasted content.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage, and result fields. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or limit behavior beyond schema, but for a standard list tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 100% coverage on parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the expected result fields (id, action, timestamp, sequence, hashes, verifyUrl) and indicating the order, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand what data will be returned.
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 lists receipt hash-chains for an agent, specifying the fields returned and the order (newest first). It also provides a usage context ('audit everything a given agent has attested'), making the purpose 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to audit everything a given agent has attested'), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives, though the sibling tools (issue_receipt, verify_receipt) are distinct enough that it's not a major gap.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: creation, listing, and verification of receipts. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case (issue_receipt, list_receipts, verify_receipt), consistent except for the natural pluralization of list_receipts.
3 tools is perfect for the focused domain of receipt management. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: create, list, and verify. For an immutable audit trail, no update or delete is needed, and verify doubles as a get.