stage-completeness-receipts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral load: a hard 5% sample cap and an x402 payment of $0.25 per probe — cost and rate-limiting context an agent genuinely needs. It omits whether the tool is read-only, what a tripwire result looks like, and what happens to the receipt_id, leaving the safety/mutation profile unstated.

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 tight fragments, no padding, and the core action leads. Density is high but the telegraphic style and undefined 'coarse-fault tripwire' cost it a point against maximum clarity.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth — yet it explains neither the return value of a probe nor how receipt_id relates to a re-scan. For a paid, 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, this is under-specified.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'claimed source' to source_listing and 'hard-capped at 5%' to sample_fraction; receipt_id — a key parameter — is never mentioned in the description or the schema.

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 verb+resource: an independent sampled re-scan of a claimed source. The intent is inferable, but 'coarse-fault tripwire' is unexplained jargon and the description never ties the action to the source_listing/receipt_id inputs, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish this from the receipt-verification siblings.

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?

'Coarse-fault tripwire' gestures at a purpose (cheap sanity check) but names no condition for use, no exclusions, and no alternative among get_receipt/issue_receipt/verify_receipt. The choice between this and verify_receipt is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at ownership scoping ('your own'). It says nothing about behavior for unknown ids, whether a receipt from another user is a 404 or 403, or whether the call is a safe read.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key detail front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a receipt contains or the lookup semantics. Instead it leaves the return shape, error cases, and ownership rule unexplained.

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% and the sole parameter has no type detail or format guidance beyond 'string.' The phrase 'by id' restates the parameter name receipt_id rather than adding format, source, or example value, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (fetch), resource (receipt), and scope ('your own') with the lookup key named. An agent can roughly separate it from issue_receipt and verify_receipt, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus verify_receipt or issue_receipt, and no precondition such as 'after a receipt has been issued.' The intended moment of use is only implied by the word 'fetch.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions signing and a payment model but omits what the receipt contains, whether issuance is idempotent, what permissions are needed, and what happens on repeated calls after the free receipt.

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 short and front-loads the core action, which is good. But it spends half its length on pricing while omitting necessary usage and parameter context, so the brevity reflects under-specification as much as conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter issuance tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too thin. An agent would know the name of the action but not how to construct a correct call or interpret the result.

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 tool has 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Required fields like 'stage', 'source', and 'listing' are never clarified, nor are optional fields like 'matched', 'expected', 'scan_status', 'query', or 'ttl'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Issue a signed stage-completeness receipt'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'stage-completeness receipt' is domain jargon, and the description never distinguishes this tool from its siblings get_receipt, verify_receipt, and coverage_probe.

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 states a pricing rule but gives no guidance on when to call issue_receipt versus verify_receipt, get_receipt, or coverage_probe. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or usage context beyond the payment note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the specific verification checks and the x402 pricing ($0.005/check). However, it says nothing about what happens on a failed verification, whether the call is idempotent or read-only, or what permissions/inputs the nested receipt object requires.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and checks, followed by a compact pricing note. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a nested required object, the description needs to do much more. 'get the downstream conclusion' is vague about return values, and the structure of the receipt input is left completely undefined, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema, including a nested receipt object. The phrase 'hash/parameter match' loosely hints at expected_query/expected_source, but the required receipt object and presented_listing are given no semantics in either the description or the schema, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (receipt), and enumerates the checks performed (signature, freshness, hash/parameter match) plus the outcome. It is clearly distinct from issue_receipt and get_receipt, but does not name them explicitly, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiating bar at 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_receipt or coverage_probe, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only inferable from the verb itself, so this is essentially no guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.