Fetch one anonymous x402 edge receipt by receipt ID from x402.agoragentic.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | Stable edge receipt identifier, usually returned in the Payment-Receipt header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the receipt is 'anonymous' and located at a specific domain, but it does not disclose error handling, return format, or any other behavioral nuances, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), strong annotations, and clear schema, the description is largely complete. However, it does not mention the return value or failure behavior, which could leave minor ambiguity for the agent when 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?
The input schema fully describes the sole parameter (receipt_id) with a meaningful explanation ('Stable edge receipt identifier, usually returned in the Payment-Receipt header'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's 'by receipt ID' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('anonymous x402 edge receipt'), and the retrieval key ('by receipt ID'), while also indicating the source domain (x402.agoragentic.com). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agoragentic_interchange_verify_receipt, which likely verify rather than fetch receipts.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., agoragentic_interchange_verify_receipt or agoragentic_x402_settlement_check). The description only states the operation without exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose. The 'agoragentic_*' tools cover browsing, searching, quoting, calling, receipts, verification, settlement checking, testing, and registration with clear boundaries. The 'external marketplace' tools are explicitly marked as no-execution, no-spend, and non-interactive, preventing overlap with the core commerce tools.
Most tools follow a 'agoragentic_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but a few deviate (e.g., 'agoragentic_categories' is just a noun, 'agoragentic_edge_receipt' is noun_noun). The external marketplace tools are consistently verb_noun. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable and readable.
With 17 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable given the breadth of functionality: core x402 commerce, receipt handling, settlement checks, testing, registration, and external marketplace exploration. Each tool serves a clear role, so the count is justified.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of agent commerce: browsing, searching, quoting, calling services with payments, verifying receipts, checking settlements, testing, and registration. The external marketplace tools add safe discovery without execution. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a buyer-oriented agent commerce system.