x402-receipt-verifier

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful information by specifying the possible verdicts, SUMMARY with delivery_rate or NO_PAYMENTS_FOUND. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or result format details beyond those two verdicts.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes. It states the main purpose first, then the possible outcome states, with no redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 description gives the core purpose and outcome variants, which is adequate for a simple three-parameter read-like aggregation. However, it lacks definitions for the parameters and does not fully characterize the returned delivery_rate or edge-case behavior, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references lookback_days and payer_address but does not meaningfully define them or explain expected formats, constraints, or meaning of asset_name. The description adds little beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it aggregates delivery-confirmation rate for one payer address on one NEXUS asset over lookback_days. The verb and resource are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool verify_payment_receipt.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus verify_payment_receipt. The descriptor 'aggregate' and the sibling's name imply a distinction, but the description does not state when one should be preferred or what exclusions apply.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It says the tool audits, returns a signed receipt, enumerates the exact verdict values, and requires claimed_at to be ISO-8601. It does not mention authentication, side effects, or signing details, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, return type, verdict enum, and timestamp constraint. There is no filler or repetition, and the description remains easy to scan despite containing multiple useful facts.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, it gives useful return information through the verdict values and 'signed receipt.' However, the exact role of window_seconds, the interpretation of the claimed fields, and the shape of the signed receipt are missing, so an agent must still fill gaps before confidently invoking the tool.

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%, and the description only specifies the timestamp format for claimed_at. The remaining parameters, especially window_seconds with default 120, receive no meaning in the description, and the matching logic for claimed_amount_usd and payer_address is left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Audits one x402 payment against NEXUS's own delivery logs' and limits it to 'its own assets only.' The three verdict strings make the expected output concrete and distinguish it from a generic or health-summary tool.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: verifying a single payment against NEXUS's own logs. It also implies a scope limitation with 'its own assets only,' which helps differentiate it from a broader spend-health query, though it never explicitly names or rejects payer_spend_health.

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