Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation.
WHEN TO USE: Use after get_status returns success/failure/partial to retrieve the full result with cost and reason codes. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for operations still in pending/executing state — use get_status first. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~50ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is free and requires no key, has ~50ms latency, and returns 'full result with cost and reason codes.' This gives the agent practical expectations beyond the annotation flags.
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 tightly structured with clear sections: purpose, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY. Every line adds useful information and the key trigger condition is front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential retrieval condition, the prerequisite tool, cost, latency, and what the return value contains. With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in the intended flow.
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 compensate for the one required parameter, operation_id. It never explicitly explains where operation_id comes from or its format; it only implies it is tied to a get_status call. Given low schema coverage, this is a meaningful 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 clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('final OutcomeReceipt'), and a precondition ('completed operation'). It differentiates itself from get_status by indicating it returns the full result after status is known, so an agent can tell the tools apart.
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?
WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE are explicit and actionable. The description names get_status as both the prerequisite and the alternative for pending/executing operations, leaving no ambiguity about sequencing.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.
The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.
At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.
Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.