verify_receiptVerify a payment receipt and see its 3-step proof trail: (1) Base TX, (2) 0G Storage receipt, (3) 0G Chain anchor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Checkout session ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds value by disclosing the output structure (Base TX, 0G Storage receipt, 0G Chain anchor), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover failure behavior or state prerequisites, but for a read-only verification tool this is acceptable.
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 one focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely lists the proof trail elements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides both purpose and the key output components. It could be slightly stronger by stating that this is for completed payments or that verification may fail, but given the tool's scope and annotations, it is largely complete.
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% – the single parameter sessionId is already described in the schema as 'Checkout session ID'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 has a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('payment receipt'), and goes further to explain the exact output: a 3-step proof trail. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_checkout_status, which would focus on status rather than proof of payment.
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 strongly implies when to use the tool (when you need to verify a receipt and view its proof trail), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. The presence of sibling tools like get_checkout_status creates potential confusion that is not addressed.
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.
Several tools overlap in the product discovery and payment status domains. discover_merchants, search_products, and get_merchant_profile all relate to finding products/merchants, though descriptions clarify intended use. Similarly, check_paywall, get_checkout_status, and verify_receipt all deal with payment status/verification, creating potential agent confusion.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (check_paywall, create_checkout, download_product, get_0g_health, etc.). The one outlier is agent_wallet_status, which is a noun phrase instead of verb-first, but it still uses underscores and fits thematically.
13 tools is within the ideal range and the server covers payments, product discovery, and verification. A few tools like get_0g_health and setup_instructions feel tangential to the core payment flow, making the set slightly heavier than necessary but still reasonable.
The payment lifecycle is well covered: discover/search products, pay via checkout or direct merchant payment, download digital goods, and verify receipts. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit refund or transaction history tool, but agents can work around these by using existing verification and wallet status tools.