get_receiptsRead receipts, newest first, including dry-run settlements and refunds, without refunding, spending money, or contacting Stripe or Link.
Read receipts, newest first, including dry-run settlements and refunds. Does not refund, spend money, or contact Stripe or Link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max receipts to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: result ordering, inclusion of dry-run settlements and refunds, and the fact that no external calls (Stripe/Link) are made, reinforcing the closed-world hint. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which keeps it below 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the disambiguating negatives. No redundant restatement of the title or name.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies ample scope (ordering, included record types). The only omission is return-size/pagination expectations, a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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 ('limit') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter or default result size; per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.
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?
Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('receipts'), with ordering ('newest first') and content scope ('including dry-run settlements and refunds'). The closing negative clause ('Does not refund, spend money, or contact Stripe or Link') cleanly separates it from the refund_receipt sibling without the agent opening either schema.
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 explicit 'does not refund, spend money' carve-out tells the agent when to route elsewhere (refund_receipt / purchase flows), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating a positive use trigger like 'use to audit past transactions', so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.