Fetch one durable FarmDash receipt by receipt ID to verify transaction details and support audit or status checks.
[Capability: preparation_only; tier: session_bound; API: /api/v1/agent/receipts/{receiptId}; authority: /api/v1/agent/status] Observe: fetch one durable FarmDash receipt by receipt_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiptId | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| agentAddress | No | ||
| sessionToken | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful facts that the receipt is 'durable' (persisted, retrievable later) and session-bound, but it does not explain what the session tier actually requires or what happens when a receipt is missing/expired.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with the observable action front-loaded after the metadata block. But the bracketed capability/tier/API/authority preamble is dense internal jargon that crowds out more useful information an agent would need.
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 read tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain session token requirements and what a receipt record contains. Instead it stops at 'fetch one durable receipt', leaving the agent to guess how to authenticate and what comes back.
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 0% across 4 parameters; only receiptId gets any characterization ('by receipt_id'), and even that is just restated from the name and pattern. sessionId, agentAddress, and sessionToken are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the 'session_bound' tag only faintly hints at their purpose.
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: 'fetch one durable FarmDash receipt by receipt_id'. That is clearly distinct from sibling status/listing tools like get_approval_status or get_mee_intent_status, though the description never names an alternative to differentiate against explicitly.
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 only usage signal is the embedded 'Capability: preparation_only; tier: session_bound' tag, which is jargon rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus sibling lookup tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.