Retrieve full details of a specific receipt using its receipt number from the Loyverse POS API. Looks up receipt data for reporting and verification.
Get full details of a specific receipt by its receipt number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_number | Yes | The receipt number to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds only 'full details', with no mention of what is returned, whether a missing receipt errors, or any auth/rate-limit context — minimal value beyond the annotation.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 trivial single-parameter read with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, plus no output schema to explain, the description is essentially sufficient. Only the meaning of 'full details' relative to the list response is left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's 'by its receipt number' merely restates the parameter's role without adding format, example, or validation detail.
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 (get), resource (receipt), and scope (full details of a specific receipt), with the singular form implicitly contrasting with the sibling list_receipts. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 by 'by its receipt number' — the agent can infer this is the lookup path once an identifier is known and that list_receipts is the discovery path. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.