aps_attribution_receipt_idCompute the canonical SHA-256 ID from an AttributionReceipt's unsigned core so verifiers can detect ID tampering before trusting the receipt.
Representation boundary helper: compute the canonical sha256 id of an AttributionReceipt's unsigned core. Verifiers use this to detect id tampering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | AttributionReceipt JSON (signatures ignored) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "receipt"
+]v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the id is canonical and deterministic, signatures are excluded from the computation, so the result depends only on the unsigned core. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations.
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, nothing wasted, and the core action is stated first with the motivating use case second. Well front-loaded for a helper of this scope.
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 one-parameter deterministic helper with no output schema, the description conveys what is computed and why it exists. The only omission is the shape of the return value (e.g., a hex digest string), which the agent must infer.
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 100% for the single 'receipt' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds only the nuance that the unsigned core is what is hashed; no format or structural detail. 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 and resource: compute the canonical sha256 id of an AttributionReceipt's unsigned core. That is far more precise than the title alone and distinguishes it from creation/signing siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, aps_compute_attribution_action_ref, which is why it stops short of 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?
The phrase 'Verifiers use this to detect id tampering' gives an implied usage context (verification flow), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as aps_compute_attribution_action_ref or aps_verify_attribution_primitive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.