Verify the outcome of an attempted X account action to decide whether to retry. Inspect persisted receipts for started or uncertain actions to prevent duplicate submissions.
Read the persisted outcome of an attempted account action. A started or failed_or_uncertain receipt requires inspection before retrying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context about needing inspection before retry, but doesn't disclose other behavioral details like response format or potential delay in availability.
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 sentences with no wasted words, and the key action (read) is front-loaded. It is concise and efficient.
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?
The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema, but for an action-receipt tool, it lacks details on the interpretation of different receipt states (e.g., what failed vs. uncertain means for retry), which could be important for correct usage.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions a receipt, not the 'id' parameter. However, with only one parameter named 'id' and a UUID format, the schema is self-explanatory; the description adds little beyond implying the id is the receipt id.
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 reads the persisted outcome of an account action. It distinguishes from siblings like x_action_prepare, x_action_execute, and x_action_cancel by focusing on reading the result, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
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?
It implies the use case: reading a receipt after an action attempt, especially for started or failed/uncertain receipts before retrying. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for checking action status) or name alternative tools for retries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.