proofrelay.generate_paid_tool_receiptGenerate an unsigned, hash-only paid MCP/API tool receipt draft that callers can include in a signed ProofRelay bundle. The tool does not charge, redeem, settle, or attest to external facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying 'unsigned, hash-only' and explicitly listing actions it does not perform (charge, redeem, settle, attest). This gives a clearer picture of side effects beyond safety hints. No contradiction with annotations observed.
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 extremely concise—two sentences—and the main action is stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary boundary conditions without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure 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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has a complex nested input object that remains completely unexplained. The description does not mention the structure or required fields of the receipt parameter, nor any workflow context. Given the moderate complexity and the 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?
The description provides zero explanation of the single 'receipt' parameter and its nested structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by describing required fields like tool_name, ts_ms, or hashes. The agent receives no guidance on how to construct the receipt object, making parameter usage unclear.
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 the tool's purpose: to generate an unsigned, hash-only paid MCP/API tool receipt draft for inclusion in a signed ProofRelay bundle. The verb 'generate' and specific resource 'receipt draft' are unambiguous, and the 'does not charge, redeem, settle, or attest to external facts' line distinguishes it from other receipt or payment tools in the sibling set.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a caller needs a receipt draft for a paid tool call to include in a ProofRelay bundle. It also clarifies limitations ('does not charge, redeem, settle'), which implicitly warns against using it for those actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
All 26 tools have distinct names that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., adapt_agent_identity_evidence vs. build_audit_pack_manifest). No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous functions, even though some share similar verbs; the nouns and description contexts differentiate them effectively.
The tool names follow a uniform convention: all start with 'proofrelay.' and use lowercase verb_noun with underscores (e.g., proofrelay.build_bundle_draft, proofrelay.verify_signed_attestation). There is no mixing of camelCase, across the entire set.
The server exposes 26 tools, which exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16–25 and falls into the 'too many' category (>25). While the tools cover a broad domain (evidence verification, risk scanning, etc.), the large number might overwhelm agents and suggests that some tools could be merged or the scope narrowed.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of operations—adapting, building, verifying, scanning, recommending, and summarizing—across multiple subdomains (identity, payment, audit, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for updating or deleting evidence, but overall the surface appears very complete for the described functionality.