cce_verify_receipt_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 0.02 USDC cost on Base L2, the x402 facilitator and treasury payTo, the X-Payment tx-hash proof requirement, the POST endpoint, and the return value (receipt's current state). It omits failure/refund behavior and whether verification is idempotent or reversible.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the payment mechanics and the business rationale. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every sentence (cost, header proof, endpoint, resale consequence, return value) contributes needed information.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the critical information is present: cost, chain, payment proof mechanism, endpoint, effect, and that it returns current state. Missing edge-case guidance (payment failure, unvested receipts, repeat verification) keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it only clarifies that the contribution_id is POSTed to the verify endpoint. It does not say where the ID comes from, its format, or how to handle an already-verified receipt.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('stamp a vested CCE receipt as VERIFIED') and states the concrete outcome, including that only verified receipts can be sold to external buyers. That distinguishes the action from sibling attestation/challenge tools without needing the name alone.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('vested' receipt) and a strong motivating condition (verification is required before external resale), plus the payment prerequisite. It stops short of naming alternatives such as cce_attest or cce_challenge and saying when those are used instead.

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