verify_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a price ('Price: 5 sat'), which hints at cost/rate-limiting, but lacks details on permissions, response format, error conditions, or what 'verified' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds cost information efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what verification returns, error handling, or how 'payment_preimage' relates to the price mentioned. For a verification tool with cost implications, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'event_id' is for verification and mentioning payment, but doesn't clarify 'payment_preimage' usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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's purpose: 'Verify an action receipt by event ID. Confirms it was signed by Jorgenclaw's key.' It specifies the verb ('verify'), resource ('action receipt'), and key verification detail. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this verification tool from sibling tools like 'create_action_receipt' or 'nostr_sign_event', which prevents a score of 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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage for verifying receipts and mentions a price, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'nostr_sign_event'), or prerequisites. Without clear context or exclusions, this falls short of higher scores.

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