receiptsList proof of spend and proof of checks for this workspace. Use this when the human asks what a charge paid for. Do not invent checkout session ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| receipt_id | No | ||
| workspace_token | No | Workspace token from checkout. Or send Authorization: Bearer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool lists workspace-scoped proof of spend/checks and warns against fabricating checkout session IDs, but it does not state auth requirements, side effects, or return-shape behavior beyond the implication of 'List'.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a clear trigger condition and a concise anti-hallucination warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 definition gives a clear purpose and use case, and the schema covers limit bounds and token auth, but with no output schema and an undocumented receipt_id parameter, the agent must infer some invocation details. It is adequate but not 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?
Schema coverage is only 33% because only workspace_token has a description. The description mentions checkout session IDs but does not explain limit, receipt_id, or how the workspace token vs. Bearer auth should be handled, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a distinct resource ('proof of spend and proof of checks for this workspace'), which helps an agent tell it apart from balance and verify_email. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the resource and action are clear.
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?
'Use this when the human asks what a charge paid for' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to select the tool. It lacks a when-not-to-use statement or alternatives, but the practical warning 'Do not invent checkout session ids' adds useful guidance.
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: balance checks credits, receipts lists past proofs, and verify_email performs email verification. No overlap exists, making tool selection unambiguous.
balance and receipts are noun-style names, while verify_email follows verb_noun convention. While each name is clear, the mixed style is slightly inconsistent, though not confusing.
Three tools are minimal but appropriate for a server focused on email verification and billing queries. The scope is narrow, so the low count is well-suited.
The tools cover the core lifecycle: checking balance, viewing receipts, and verifying emails. Minor gaps exist (e.g., purchasing credits) but these are likely handled externally, so the surface is adequate.