The signed receipt for a finished job. It states what was asked, what evidence arrived, what was concluded and what moved, and can be verified by anyone without trusting the exchange.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | the job id returned when it was posted | |
| token | No | the token returned when the job was posted without an account; not needed when connected with a key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: the receipt is signed, verifiable without trusting the exchange, and contains a structured summary of the job. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if the job is not finished, or any failure/auth edge cases.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('signed receipt for a finished job') and then adds essential detail about the receipt's contents and verifiability. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary structure.
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 two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what the receipt contains and how to verify it. However, without an output schema, an explicit action statement, or guidance on unfinished jobs and authentication variants, the definition is adequate but not fully 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it neither clarifies the relationship between 'job' and 'token' nor provides any additional usage details for them.
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 identifies a specific resource—the signed receipt for a finished job—and explains what the receipt records, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_status and job_evidence. However, it does not use an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets,' so the agent must infer the action from the tool name and noun-phrase description.
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 phrase 'for a finished job' implies the tool is used after a job completes, and the verification property suggests an auditing use case. Still, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer job_receipt over job_status or job_evidence, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions: feasibility checking, posting physical work, gathering structured info, verifying truth, and reviewing job artifacts. The only plausible confusion is between find_out and observe_world, since both involve paying someone to investigate the physical world, though their outputs differ.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: check_feasible, find_out, observe_world, and list_bids are verb-first, do_in_world is a unique verb+preposition, and job_evidence, job_receipt, and job_status are noun-first. The job_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a single predictable convention.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a physical-world exchange: pre-flight feasibility, posting work, requesting information, verification, bidding, status, evidence, and receipts. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
The core lifecycle is covered: check feasibility, post a job, review bids, track status, inspect evidence, and get a verifiable receipt. The main gaps are no explicit cancel/update job tool and no direct job listing tool, but agents can navigate the main workflows without dead ends.