Verify a standard-mode SafeRoute Base execution against its signed receipt. Free; referral payouts remain disabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| transactionHash | Yes | ||
| receiptSignature | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only that the tool is free and disables referral payouts, but does not describe side effects, return behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient.
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?
Description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a concise behavioral 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?
Complexity is moderate with 3 required params and a nested object, but no output schema and no annotations. Description does not explain how to construct the receipt, what transactionHash refers to, or expected response. Minimal guidance for correct invocation.
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 description only mentions 'signed receipt', providing minimal meaning for receipt and receiptSignature. transactionHash is not explained, and receipt structure is unclear. Description does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Verify' and identifies exact resource: 'standard-mode SafeRoute Base execution' against 'signed receipt'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_base_swap and get_safe_swap_quote.
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?
Description gives context that this verifies execution against a signed receipt, but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like check_base_swap or get_safe_swap_quote. The note 'Free; referral payouts remain disabled' hints at limitations but lacks explicit guidance.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some functional overlap among safety and verification tools (e.g., check_base_swap vs guard_base_trade, verify_swap_execution vs verify_transaction_intent) that could cause confusion without careful reading. Overall, the descriptions help differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear verbs (check, get, guard, list, preflight, prepare, protect, prove, route, verify). No mixed conventions or ambiguous naming styles are present.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a blockchain safety and payment protection server. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflows of asset discovery, risk assessment, transaction preparation, and verification, without feeling excessive or sparse.
The toolset covers the core domain comprehensively, including safety checks, swap quotes, trade guarding, transaction simulation, transfer and payment preparation, and verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for revoking or managing receipts), but the main workflows are well-served.