verify_mpp_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ({verified: true}) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if verification fails. This is insufficient for a verification tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameters, and output without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key 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?

Given the complexity of verifying on-chain transactions, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error responses, behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects, and doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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%, but the description adds some semantic context: it explains that 'tx_id' is an 'on-chain transaction ID' and 'resource_id' relates to a 'resource's declared amount' and 'tenant's payout address'. However, it doesn't fully document all three parameters (e.g., 'network' is only implied by context), leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the specific action ('verify') and resource ('MPP receipt'), specifying it checks if a transaction paid the declared amount to the tenant's payout address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify_payment' or 'verify_webhook' by focusing on MPP receipts and on-chain transaction IDs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_payment' or 'verify_ap2_payment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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