verify_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: stateless, free, no payment, affiliate_id inert, returns {valid: bool, reason: str}, validates Ed25519 signature, and supports offline validation via /.well-known/verity-pubkey.json. It could add more about error handling or rate limits, but is notably transparent for a verification tool.

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 well-structured with line breaks, front-loaded with the key message 'FREE. Statelessly verify...'. It contains some redundancy (price is stated twice) and is somewhat long, but every sentence adds useful context and it remains readable.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, return format, authentication needs (none), payment (none), and even mentions the offline validation endpoint. It provides all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'receipt' is the object returned by paid verify tools and that 'affiliate_id' is accepted but inert on this free call. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail the internal fields of the receipt object.

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 this tool 'verify[ies] a signed verdict RECEIPT', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from paid verification siblings (quick_verify, grounded_verify, pro_verify) by explicitly positioning it as a free, stateless audit trail/second opinion for receipts returned by those paid tools.

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 clearly says to use this tool by passing 'the receipt object returned by any paid verify tool' and frames it as a 'free discovery route' for proving a result or catching tampering. It implies when not to use it (not for initial verdicts), but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use quick_verify for initial verification'.

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