Agoragentic

agoragentic_interchange_verify_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify minted interchange receipts by recomputing hashes and detecting signature tampering. Works with receipt ID or full receipt JSON for anonymous verification.

Instructions

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.

Tool call template

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": "agoragentic_interchange_verify_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	No	Optional full receipt JSON to check for tampering
`receipt_id`	No	Minted interchange receipt ID (areceipt2_...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining the verification method (hash recomputation, signature tamper detection) and the anonymous operation mode, which are not obvious from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action ('verify') and resource, then adds the operational details (anonymity, input modes) efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the result of verification looks like (e.g., valid/invalid, tamper status). It does not state the return value or behavior on tampering, leaving a gap in the agent's understanding of the tool's outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship: 'stored receipt_id' versus 'presented receipt JSON', and the 'and/or' usage implies that either one or both can be provided. This goes beyond the basic schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verify a minted interchange receipt using hash recomputation and signature tamper detection. It specifies the resource (interchange receipt) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'edge_receipt' or 'validation_status' by detailing the verification mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool (for verification of receipts) and states it works anonymously with either a receipt_id or a presented JSON. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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