assetfare_verify_source_receipt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires caller approval, makes a network request, never signs or submits, and advances a stateful workflow. This goes beyond schema/annotations without contradicting them, though it could say a bit more about failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, usage/alternative, and behavioral caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no repeated or filler content.

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 stateful v1 workflow step with no output schema, the description adequately covers ordering, v1/v2 routing, and safety profile. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'advances the workflow' means for subsequent steps or response interpretation, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%, and each parameter has a clear, detailed description (e.g., signature format and security warning, session_id scope, access_token sensitivity, idempotency_key reuse rule). The tool description itself adds workflow context but does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify'), names the exact resource ('finalized Solana source signature already submitted by the caller'), and states the workflow effect ('advance the legacy v1 workflow'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the v2 sibling assetfare_v2_session_observe_source, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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. It also states the alternative for v2 sessions, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundaries clear. The added note about caller approval and network behavior further clarifies prerequisites.

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