Verify a receipt chain; pin chain_head to detect tail-truncation
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"receipts": "<receipts>"
},
"name": "verify_receipts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipts | Yes | ||
| chain_head | 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 behavioral burden. It adds one useful behavioral trait: pinning chain_head detects tail-truncation. But it omits whether the operation is read-only, what verification returns on success or failure, and any permission or side-effect details.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses—verification and chain_head pinning—add 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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves the required receipts structure and the verification result format unspecified, which an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters. It explains chain_head's purpose ('pin ... to detect tail-truncation') but leaves the required 'receipts' array completely undefined—no element shape, format, or ordering. This is only partial compensation.
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, 'Verify,' and resource, 'receipt chain,' so the core action is immediately clear. The chain_head clause adds scope. Sibling tools are in different domains, so explicit differentiation is not essential, but the purpose could be slightly sharper.
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?
'Verify a receipt chain' implies the general use case, and 'pin chain_head to detect tail-truncation' gives conditional guidance for the optional parameter. However, it does not name alternatives such as audit_toolbox or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance only implied.
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.