receiptsSettled markets: frozen p vs price at listing, T-24h, T-1h; head scores both; offset pages.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "receipts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: prices are 'frozen' at listing, T-24h and T-1h, 'head scores both', and results are paged by offset. That said, the phrasing is too compressed to be reliably actionable, and nothing is said about what happens with unsettled markets or the response shape.
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?
It is very short with no filler, which is good, but the semicolon-fragment style pushes density past clarity. Conciseness here comes at the cost of comprehension rather than from disciplined editing.
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 four-parameter, no-output-schema tool in a domain with non-obvious terms (T-24h, frozen price, head scores), the description is far too thin. The agent can infer it is a read of settled-market pricing, but cannot confidently construct a call or predict results.
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% for four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. 'Offset pages' maps to the offset parameter and 'head' hints at a leading section, but 'kind' (live/backtest/all), 'entity', and 'format' (tsv/json/md) are never addressed, leaving enum semantics unexplained.
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 offers only telegraphic fragments ('Settled markets: frozen p vs price at listing, T-24h, T-1h') with no verb and no statement of what the tool returns. An agent cannot tell from this whether it retrieves price snapshots, generates a report, or lists markets, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like 'quotes' or 'changes'.
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?
'Settled markets' implies a scope and excludes live markets, which is weak implicit guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus 'quotes' or 'history', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.