Receive Ecash
Receive/redeem a Cashu ecash token.
The agent swaps the received proofs for new ones at the mint, ensuring the sender can't double-spend. This is the standard Cashu receive flow (NUT-03 swap).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of swapping proofs at the mint to prevent double-spending, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects like token consumption, crediting to the agent, or idempotency, leaving gaps for a mutation operation.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a brief behavioral explanation and a minimal response section. It's efficiently written with no fluff, though the response section could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core flow but omits critical details like the exact response body, error cases, and what agent_id represents. It's not fully complete but is more informative than a bare one-liner, earning a middle score.
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. It clarifies that 'token' is a Cashu ecash token, but provides no meaning for 'agent_id', which is a required parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about the role of agent_id, making the description insufficient for parameter understanding.
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 uses specific verbs 'Receive/redeem' and names the resource 'Cashu ecash token', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'send_ecash' by describing the receive flow and even cites the standard NUT-03 swap.
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 the usage context: it is for receiving/redeeming ecash tokens, as opposed to sending or verifying. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is the counterpart to send operations.
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, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.