elucora_get_receiptFetch an evidence receipt by ID: the source it covers, the exact passage or field that was sealed, the current signature result, and its transparency log and Bitcoin anchor state. Needs no credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that no credentials are needed and explicitly lists the data returned in the receipt (source, sealed passage, signature result, transparency log, Bitcoin anchor state). This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 compact—two sentences—and immediately states the action, the resource, and the key return details. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds useful information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the return fields, and the authentication context (no credentials). Combined with the annotations, the tool is fully comprehensible.
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 single 'id' parameter is fully defined by the schema with a required pattern, but the description only says 'by ID' and does not elaborate on the parameter's source or format. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds very little semantic value beyond what the schema already states.
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 fetching an evidence receipt by ID and enumerates the specific contents returned (source, sealed passage, signature result, transparency log, Bitcoin anchor state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest, capture, and verify, which have 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 gives a clear context: use this to fetch a receipt by ID. The phrase 'Needs no credentials' hints at accessibility but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or reference to alternatives; however, the distinct sibling names make the usage apparent.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: attest for user-held bytes, capture for web sources, get_receipt for retrieval, and verify for validation. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow the elucora_ verb pattern (attest, capture, get_receipt, verify). The naming is consistent snake_case and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped count for an evidence API: two creation variants, one retrieval, and one verification. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full evidence lifecycle: creating proof (attest/capture), retrieving receipts, and verifying authenticity. Since evidence is immutable, update/delete are unnecessary.