Receipt — sign an agent's work, verify it offline

issue_receipt

Sign an artifact with an Ed25519 receipt. Returns the receipt JSON: artifact hash, agent, task, amount and a signature anyone can verify offline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "issue_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	task or quest id
`agent`	Yes	agent identifier, e.g. VOID-9
`key_path`	No	optional Ed25519 private key file (local/stdio only); a fresh key is used otherwise
`amount_gg`	No	amount paid for the work
`artifact_b64`	No	the delivered file's bytes, base64 — use this with a hosted endpoint
`artifact_name`	No	optional filename recorded in the receipt
`artifact_path`	No	path to the delivered file (local/stdio only; a hosted server refuses it)
`artifact_text`	No	the delivered content as UTF-8 text, when it is text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns receipt JSON with a verifiable signature, but it omits operational details such as key generation behavior, side effects, and endpoint restrictions, which matter for a signing operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences. It front-loads the core action and follows with return value information, with no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an eight-parameter tool with no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned receipt JSON structure. The input schema is rich enough to cover parameter details, though the description still leaves behavioral gaps around signing context and endpoint differences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description adds some meaning by naming receipt fields (artifact hash, agent, task, amount), but it does not clarify the artifact input variants or key handling beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Sign'), resource ('an artifact'), and cryptographic mechanism ('Ed25519 receipt'), then names the returned receipt fields. This clearly distinguishes signing from the sibling verify_receipt tool, though it does not explicitly mention the sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as verify_receipt. It also does not mention prerequisites like the local/stdio versus hosted endpoint distinction, which appears only in the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Receipt — sign an agent's work, verify it offline tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.