anchor_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: read-only, the mined criterion (height>0, out of mempool), the source (keeper), and the conditional branch that returns a full anchor record with specific fields. It omits error behavior for an unknown or unmined txid and any permission requirements, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

A single dense sentence with the trigger (given a txid), the primary action, and the conditional branch front-loaded; nothing is padded. It loses a point only because specialized vocabulary (SEPTA, atoms) is packed in without a pause, making it harder to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the returned content (block, atoms, sealed text, verify status) and the conditional path. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only failure/absent-record semantics.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 64-hex txid format and the example. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: confirm an anchor stamp is on-chain for a given txid, and describe what gets reported. The scope (SEPTA mined status plus full settlement-book record) is concrete, but it never names the siblings verify_settlement or book_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is for confirming a known txid is mined and, conditionally, retrieving its anchor record. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from verify_settlement or book_status, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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