Verify a pasted Parano1d payment receipt hex or txid against explorer data (and optional local RPC paranoid_verifyReceipt).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "verify_receipt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | No | ||
| receipt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the verification mechanism (explorer lookup with an optional local RPC fallback), which is genuinely useful. It does not say what happens when verification fails, whether the operation is read-only side-effect free, or any auth/rate constraints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism detail is subordinated in parentheses rather than buried mid-clause. Only minor cost is the dense jargon ('paranoid_verifyReceipt') without explanation.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (two optional strings, no nested objects), and the description covers purpose and verification source. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, an agent still cannot tell what a successful vs failed verification looks like or which of the two optional params is actually needed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it identifies both inputs (receipt hex, txid) and marks them as alternatives ('or'), which adds real meaning beyond the bare string properties. It stops short of stating whether one is required, whether both may be passed, or expected formats.
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?
States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('Parano1d payment receipt hex or txid') plus the verification source ('explorer data', optional 'paranoid_verifyReceipt'). This is clearly distinct from invoice-creation siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with check_invoice or get_payment_info.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'pasted ... receipt hex or txid', which signals the input situation (a user-supplied artifact). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_invoice or get_payment_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.