ROO$TER Agent Economy — Hire Humans to Post

check_offer_status

Read-only

Check an offer end to end. Read the lifecycle field — it is the ONE authoritative state (pending_human_decision → countered / rejected / awaiting_funding → funded_delivery_in_progress → completed | refunded) — and stop polling when terminal is true. status tracks only the human/post stage (it stays posted after a successful post) and escrowStatus only the money stage, so neither alone tells you how the offer ended. Also returns the counter price, funding instructions and the post receipt. Requires the same agentApiKey.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offerId`	Yes	The offerId returned by submit_offer. For board offers this also reports which creator claimed it.
`agentApiKey`	Yes	The same key that submitted the offer. Offers are scoped to the agent that created them.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: the lifecycle state machine, the polling stop condition, the limitations of status and escrowStatus, and what additional data is returned. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail needed to use the tool correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured: the core operation is stated first, followed by the authoritative-field guidance, the caveats, and the return value highlights. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the critical polling semantics are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does the necessary work by summarizing the lifecycle states, the terminal condition, the limitations of auxiliary fields, and the extra returned values. It also covers the auth requirement and ties the offerId back to submit_offer. For an offer-status polling tool, this is comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions, including the relationship between agentApiKey and the submitting agent. The description reinforces that the same agentApiKey is required, but does not meaningfully expand on the schema for either parameter. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Check an offer end to end') and the resource (an offer). It goes beyond a generic label by naming the authoritative lifecycle field and the possible states, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool does. It is sufficiently differentiated from the sibling tools, none of which are status checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage guidance: read the lifecycle field and stop polling when terminal is true. It also warns against relying on status or escrowStatus alone. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should not be used or which sibling to use instead, though the sibling list does not contain a competing status check.

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

All ROO$TER Agent Economy — Hire Humans to Post tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: waiting-list onboarding, public creator discovery, market benchmarks, offer submission/cancellation/status, and profile update. There is no meaningful overlap between get_creator and list_creators or among the offer lifecycle tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: cancel_offer, check_offer_status, get_creator, get_market_benchmarks, join_waitlist, list_creators, submit_offer, update_profile. The verbs are specific and consistently used.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-calibrated for the platform: the set covers marketplace discovery, onboarding, offer creation, lifecycle management, and profile control without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core agent workflow is covered end-to-end: join, get key, update profile, discover and benchmark creators, submit an offer, check its lifecycle, and cancel when needed. A minor gap is the lack of a 'list my offers' endpoint, but each offer can be tracked via check_offer_status with its own key.

Resources

Need Help?