ah_get_receipt_detailsRetrieve detailed line items, unit prices, discounts, and total amount for a specific store receipt using its transaction ID.
Get detailed line items, unit prices, discounts, and total amount for a specific store receipt. A closed receipt is immutable, so it is cached for 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | Receipt transaction ID (from ah_list_receipts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the description earns credit for adding real context beyond them: closed receipts are immutable and cached for 30 days, telling the agent results may be stale and cannot change. It stops short of covering failure behavior — what happens for an unknown or still-open transaction ID — which is the one gap left.
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, zero padding. The payload contents come first and the caching caveat second, matching the order in which an agent needs that 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?
With one required parameter, no output schema and only a read-only annotation, the description carries the right load: it enumerates the returned fields and explains caching. It could go one step further by noting error behavior for invalid or non-closed receipt IDs, which is the only meaningful omission for a single-ID lookup.
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, with 100% schema description coverage that already says it is the receipt transaction ID sourced from ah_list_receipts. The description adds no format, validation or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 (get), a specific resource (a single store receipt) and enumerates exactly what comes back: line items, unit prices, discounts and total. That enumeration plus the singular 'specific store receipt' separates it cleanly from the sibling ah_list_receipts without requiring the agent to open either schema.
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 only implied: the singular receipt plus the transaction_id requirement signals 'call this after ah_list_receipts, with an ID from that list', but the description never names the sibling or states the when-to-use condition. The routing hint lives in the schema's parameter text rather than in the description, so the guidance is present but indirect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.