anchor_receipt

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

The description describes an on-chain write operation that costs gas and creates a persistent attestation, but the annotations mark the tool with readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the described side effects. Per the rubric, any contradiction between description and annotations forces a score of 1 and an annotation_contradiction flag.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then explains the purpose, constraints, and non-token nature. It uses some marketing-style flourishes like 'reputation as a real-world asset' and em-dashes, which slightly reduce conciseness, but it is still tight enough for a complex tool.

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 covers the main purpose, validity constraint, immutability, public-checkability, and gas cost. However, it does not explain what the tool returns, how invalid receipts are handled, or how to verify the resulting attestation later. The annotation contradiction also undermines the tool's side-effect clarity, and the lack of an output schema increases the need for more complete behavioral context.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so 100% coverage is present. The description adds that only valid receipts are anchored, but this mostly mirrors the schema's 'valid vcr/1 receipt' phrasing. It does not add deeper parameter-level semantics like format, validation rules, or examples, 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Anchor a signed receipt's digest on Base' and clarifies the outcome as an immutable, timestamped, publicly-checkable on-chain proof. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing anchoring an existing valid receipt rather than verifying, issuing, or backtesting.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a valid receipt and want a portable, on-chain credential. It also includes important caveats such as 'Only VALID receipts are anchored' and 'you pay the gas once'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses a full 5.

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