get_receiptRead a public purchase receipt by ID to view approval, scope, price cap, merchant, proofs, and content hash without an API key.
Read a public purchase receipt: approval, scope, price cap, merchant, proofs, and content hash. No API key. The approver contact and the edit token are not included. Same as GET /v1/receipts/:id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | Public receipt id (rcpt_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real value beyond them: it declares the authentication requirement ('No API key'), discloses what is deliberately withheld ('approver contact and the edit token are not included'), and maps to the underlying REST route. It stops short of 5 only because no rate-limit or pagination behavior is mentioned.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then access requirements, then exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned content (approval, scope, price cap, merchant, proofs, content hash) and by calling out the sensitive fields that are omitted. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single receipt_id parameter is already documented with its rcpt_ prefix format in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint information beyond that, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a public purchase receipt') and enumerates the payload fields an agent will get back, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling verify_receipt or get_job, so it stops short of a 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?
'No API key' implies it can be called without authentication, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than verify_receipt, which is the obvious adjacent sibling, so usage remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.