Verify a receipt by id (or by passing the full receipt object). Recomputes the content hash, confirms the id commits to the body, and checks the ed25519 signature. Returns the verification checks plus the provenance record (action, agent, input/output hashes, timestamp, chain position). FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Receipt id, e.g. 'rcpt_...'. | |
| receipt | No | Alternatively, the full receipt object to verify offline-style. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the verification process: recomputing hash, confirming id commitment, checking ed25519 signature, and returning checks plus provenance. It is transparent about being a read-like operation (no mention of side effects).
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential detail without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (verification checks plus provenance record). Parameter documentation is sufficient. Sibling tools are not differentiated in the description, but purpose clarity compensates. Overall, it covers the necessary context for a 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the alternative usage ('offline-style') and the relationship between 'id' and 'receipt' parameters. This aids correct parameter selection.
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 action (verify), resource (receipt), and two invocation modes (by id or full object). It also lists specific verification steps (hash, id commit, signature). This differentiates it from sibling tools issue_receipt and list_receipts.
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 usage for verifying receipts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides basic guidance on parameters but lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
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.