Get Settlement Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Fetch' aligns and adds that the receipt is 'signed protocol-v2'. However, it does not disclose what the signed receipt contains or its permanence. This adds marginal value beyond 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?

The description is concise (11 words) and front-loaded, but it is too brief. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it only adequate. Additional context would improve without losing conciseness.

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 the low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description should at least explain the parameter and usage context. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly. The purpose is clear but incomplete for execution.

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 single parameter 'receipt_id' is a required string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what a receipt_id is, how it is generated, or how to obtain it. This leaves the agent guessing about valid input values.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'signed protocol-v2 settlement receipt for one Harbor intent'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like paybond_get_intent or paybond_get_reputation_receipt by focusing on a particular receipt type.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for fetching a specific receipt but offers no context on prerequisites, such as having an intent ID or where to obtain a receipt_id. Given many sibling tools, this lack of guidance is a gap.

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