Ask whether a call was rejected pre-dispatch, by which constraint, and whether substitution is forbidden (DO-NOT-SUBSTITUTE). $0.01/query; one free query per operator ever.
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": "receipt_query"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| field | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses pricing and a one-free-query-per-operator limit, but omits auth requirements, return shape, error behavior, and whether billing applies on failed queries.
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 and front-loads the core purpose, followed by relevant cost information. There is little wasted text, though the combined sentence is dense.
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 description covers what the query answers and its pricing, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, it leaves critical gaps around parameter usage and full behavioral expectations.
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 schema has two parameters, tool and field, with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what these parameters mean or how to populate them, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a clear query purpose: asking whether a call was rejected pre-dispatch, which constraint caused it, and whether substitution is forbidden. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools differ_scan and record_rejection, but the operation is specific enough to distinguish from a generic query.
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?
It describes the information available and mentions a price and a lifetime free query, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than differ_scan or record_rejection. The cost note is useful context but not alternative-selection 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.