Verify payment receipt

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds transparency by detailing the tool reads a transaction over RPC and decodes USDC transfers, which is consistent with read-only behavior. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and behavior, with no unnecessary words.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers transaction type, process steps, and result fields. With full parameter schema coverage and two simple parameters, the description is complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning the default network (eip155:1776) which aligns with the enum. 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 clearly states the tool verifies an x402 USDC payment receipt on Injective EVM, specifying the process (reads RPC, decodes transfer) and output (block time, amount, payer, payee, explorer link). This distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like wc_bracket or wallet_fund_guide.

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 implies usage for verifying receipts and mentions 'Free.', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though sibling tools are unrelated.

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