market.receiptCheck an invocation's receipt, result, state, and charged amount using its ID. Avoid duplicate calls when a wallet hold is pending or uncertain.
Read your invocation receipt, result, state and charged amount by invocation_id. A pending/uncertain state may have a retained wallet hold; do not duplicate the invocation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invocation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that a pending/uncertain state may involve a retained wallet hold and advising against duplicating the invocation.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important wallet-hold caution is placed in the second sentence without bloating the description.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the return contents (receipt, result, state, charged amount), identifies the key parameter, and adds a relevant behavioral warning. Error cases and deeper charge semantics are not covered, but this is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.
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 does name invocation_id as the lookup key and implies it must refer to one of the caller's own invocations, but it adds little beyond the parameter's self-explanatory name and provides no format or ownership detail beyond the schema's maxLength/minLength.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read your invocation receipt, result, state and charged amount by invocation_id." This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like market.invoke and market.search by focusing on post-invocation receipt lookup.
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 implies when to use it (when you have an invocation_id and need the receipt/state/charge), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like market.search or market.describe. The caution "do not duplicate the invocation" gives some practical context but is not a full when-to-use vs. siblings statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.