Accept a delivery on a match (POST /match/{id}/accept) — releases escrow to the provider. You must be the buyer party; backend enforces it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| match_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "market_acceptDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical effect 'releases escrow to the provider' and notes the backend enforcement of buyer role. It does not elaborate on idempotency behavior or potential error outcomes, but the key side effect is clearly stated.
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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The main action is front-loaded, and the role constraint is succinctly appended. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 an output schema exists, return values are not required. The description covers the purpose, the required role, and the main side effect. It lacks details about idempotency usage or error conditions, but for a simple accept action, it is sufficiently complete.
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 clarifies match_id via the endpoint path, but provides no explanation of idempotency_key. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds limited value beyond the schema itself, especially for the optional parameter.
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 ('Accept'), a resource ('a delivery on a match'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like market_provide or market_request by focusing on the acceptance action and the buyer role.
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 explicitly states the condition 'You must be the buyer party; backend enforces it,' which guides when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the role constraint makes the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.