Free. Verify a report receipt's Ed25519 signature, and optionally check that a findings array matches the hash the receipt committed to. Use this before paying to confirm the seller is describing real work, and after paying to confirm you received all of it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | the receipt object from any report | |
| findings | No | optionally, the findings array to check against findings_hash |
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 discloses the cost ('Free.'), which is meaningful given the _x402 siblings, and implies a non-mutating read operation by describing verification. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure/return behavior, leaving an agent to infer what happens on signature mismatch.
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 short sentences front-load the most decision-relevant fact (free), then the core operation, then usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy — model quality for a tool description of this complexity.
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 nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and why, and the schema fully documents both parameters. The main omission is the return/error format, which is largely inferable for a verification operation but would be more critical given the absence of annotations.
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 100%: receipt is documented as 'the receipt object from any report' and findings as 'the findings array to check against findings_hash,' so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds cryptographic framing (Ed25519, 'the hash the receipt committed to') that clarifies how the two params interrelate, but the agent's invocation requirements are unchanged.
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 precise operation — verifying a report receipt's Ed25519 signature — plus an optional secondary check that the findings array matches the committed hash. The verb 'verify' plus the specific resource (report receipt) makes the purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all report/model/site-audit producers rather than verifiers.
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?
Provides two explicit invocation contexts: before paying to confirm the seller is describing real work, and after paying to confirm receipt of all work. It gives clear, scenario-based usage context, though it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use the tool — a minor gap since no sibling is a natural alternative for verification.
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.
The x402 variants are exact duplicates of three paid tools, differing only by payment rail, so an agent choosing between them can misselect if it does not account for x402/USDC. The rest are well separated: free summaries, paid details, single vs batch lookup, and verify_report each have clear roles.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a predictable feature_variant pattern like drift_summary, drift_report_x402, model_status_batch, and site_audit_summary. verify_report is the only action-styled outlier, but it still fits the readable and consistent naming approach.
Ten tools is not excessive for a service offering three product areas plus receipt verification, but three of those ten are x402 clones of existing tools, which adds redundancy. Deduplicating to seven logical operations would be tighter, so it earns a mild penalty.
The workflow surface is complete: every paid product has a free summary/preflight, paid full detail, and receipt verification, while model status offers single and batch lookup. Minor gaps such as no list-catalog or multi-URL site-audit batch exist, but they are not dead ends for the stated purpose.