Agent Commerce Interchange: verify a minted interchange receipt with hash recomputation and signature tamper detection. Works anonymously with a stored receipt_id and/or a presented receipt JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | No | Optional full receipt JSON to check for tampering | |
| receipt_id | No | Minted interchange receipt ID (areceipt2_...) |
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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: hash recomputation, signature tamper detection, and anonymous operation, which are not captured by annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and mechanism; the second covers input modes. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only verification tool with two optional parameters and a clear purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and the purpose is unambiguous.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two parameters and introduces the 'and/or' relationship between them, but it does not add substantial detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'verify a minted interchange receipt' with explicit mechanisms (hash recomputation, signature tamper detection). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like edge_receipt or validation_status by focusing on receipt verification and tamper detection.
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 provides clear usage context by stating it works anonymously with a stored receipt_id and/or a presented receipt JSON, implying two invocation modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for selection.
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.