verify_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the verification criteria (signature + confirmed on-chain transaction match), but omits failure behavior, authentication needs, and rate limits, so it is a modest addition over the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the verb, resource, and verification scope without wasted 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?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations and a fully documented parameter, the definition is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what verification returns (boolean, error, or status), leaving a meaningful gap for an agent interpreting the result.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema fully describes it as 'Receipt JWS' with 100% coverage. The description adds no format, encoding, or source detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Verify') and resource ('receipt'), and clarifies the two verification criteria: the m2m.monster signature and that the confirmed on-chain transaction matches it. It does not name or differentiate from the sibling verify_payment, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 explains what is verified but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as verify_payment. An agent gets no routing signal for choosing this tool over siblings.

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