assetfare_verify_source_receipt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool advances the legacy workflow, makes a network request, requires caller approval, and never signs or submits. These nuances go beyond the annotations (which only mark readOnly, idempotent, destructive hints) and give the agent a clear picture of side effects and limits.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose, sequence prerequisite, v2 alternative, and key behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

The description is complete for tool selection and sequencing, covering prerequisites, alternatives, and safety behaviors. However, it does not describe the expected output or failure modes, which would help an agent handle the response properly; this is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The main description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('finalized Solana source signature') and explicitly places it in the legacy v1 workflow. It also names the v2 alternative, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like assetfare_v2_session_observe_source.

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 description gives an explicit precondition ('Use only after the caller independently submits assetfare_prepare_source_action') and an explicit alternative for v2 sessions. It also notes caller approval and network usage, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.