Read the on-chain attestation record for a completed/rejected ERC-8183 job — provider address, agentId, approved flag, timestamp. Proof that the RookAttestationHook fired. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID (integer) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a read operation (free, on-chain read) and lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention behavior for non-existent job IDs, potential errors, or any prerequisites beyond the job being completed/rejected, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 compact two-sentence structure that leads with the primary verb and resource, then lists return fields and the tool's purpose. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy or filler.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input scope, output contents, and cost. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., missing attestation), but given the simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter job_id is described in the schema. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by restricting the job state to 'completed/rejected' and clarifying that the job is an ERC-8183 job, which enhances understanding of the parameter's domain.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('on-chain attestation record') plus the relevant scope ('for a completed/rejected ERC-8183 job'). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating it provides proof that the RookAttestationHook fired, which is distinct from get_escrow_job or sign_receipt.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for completed/rejected ERC-8183 jobs, and explains the intended purpose (proof of hook execution). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.
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 are clearly distinct (list, preview, sign, escrow state), but get_quote and call_paid_endpoint both return pricing and latency for endpoints, which could cause misselection. The three preview tools are similar but target different endpoints.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (call_, get_, list_, preview_, sign_). No camelCase or mixed conventions.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of endpoint discovery, quoting, previewing, and escrow verification. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat.
The server lacks tools for actually executing paid endpoints or creating escrow jobs, and there is no way to list escrow jobs by client or provider. It focuses on planning and verification, leaving execution to external mechanisms, which is a notable gap for a trading-focused server.
