Resolve receipt ids to the real records behind them. This is how you CHECK a claim: if an id does not resolve, the claim citing it was not real. Takes one id or many. Long records are truncated with notice; pass full: true for complete text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return complete record text with no truncation. Default false. | |
| receiptIds | Yes | Receipt ids, as returned by any other tool. Up to 50. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: records are truncated with notice, full:true returns complete text, and an unresolved id means the cited claim was not real. This gives the agent useful expectations not encoded in the schema or annotations.
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 sentences with no wasted words: purpose, use case, and parameter caveat are each front-loaded and clearly separated. The description earns every sentence and is easy to parse quickly.
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 read-only lookup tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and the one nuanced parameter (full). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already document the parameters. The description adds value by explaining that receiptIds can be one or many and that full:true disables truncation, which clarifies the practical effect of the parameters beyond their schema definitions.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it resolves receipt ids to the real records behind them, and immediately gives the key use case—checking whether a claim is real. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about searching and comparing rather than resolving a concrete id.
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 clearly states when to use this tool: to CHECK a claim by seeing if an id resolves. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the claim-checking context is specific enough that an agent will not confuse it with category_warmth, compare_formats, or search_evidence.
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.
Each tool maps to a clearly distinct operation: checking category cache/warmth, comparing ad formats, resolving receipt IDs, and searching the evidence corpus. Even though search_evidence and get_receipt both return evidence, one is query-based and the other is a direct ID lookup, so there is no real ambiguity.
Three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern: compare_formats, get_receipt, search_evidence. category_warmth is the one outlier as a noun phrase, but it is still descriptive and fits the domain's 'warmth' concept, so the inconsistency is minor.
Four tools is a compact but well-scoped set for an evidence-retrieval/corroboration server. Each tool earns its place: orient, search, compare, and verify. There is no redundant bulk or missing essential operation within the stated purpose.
The read-only evidence domain is covered end to end: category_warmth provides orientation, search_evidence returns corpus results with corroboration status, compare_formats delivers the comparison verdict, and get_receipt lets agents verify the underlying records. The workflow has no obvious dead ends.