Get a Merkle inclusion proof that a specific spend is included in a daily GMV total. Returns the spend leaf hash, sibling hashes for the Merkle path, and the GMV root hash. This cryptographic proof allows anyone to independently verify that a spend was counted in the reported GMV without trusting the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spendId | Yes | The spend ID (UUID) to get an inclusion proof for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It explains the return values and the verification purpose, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is transparent about the output but lacks broader behavioral context.
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?
Three sentences: first states the action, second lists returned values, third explains the value proposition. No redundant words; front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 simple input and output, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, return values, and the verification context. However, it could briefly note that the spend must already be included in a daily GMV, which is implied but not explicit.
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 100% for the single parameter spendId, and the schema already provides a clear description. The tool's description adds context about the proof but not about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 the tool retrieves a Merkle inclusion proof for a specific spend, specifying the returned components and the cryptographic verification purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-daily-gmv and get-cumulative-gmv.
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 implicitly guides usage by explaining that the proof allows independent verification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify-issued-gmv or other GET tools. The context of cryptographic verification is clear, but no exclusions are provided.
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.
