FREE. Read the immutable, customer-safe receipt for a bridge transfer by quote_id: status, amount paid, amount delivered, N9T2 fee, route cost and the payment and delivery transaction hashes. A transfer is complete only when status is 'settled' and settlement.status is 'completed'. 404 means not ready yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | Yes | quote_id of the transfer to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the call is free, the receipt is immutable and customer-safe, the exact condition that marks a transfer complete, and how a 404 should be read. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the added context is substantive.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE') and then the resource and its fields. Every sentence earns its place by adding interpretation the schema and annotations do not carry.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields. It also supplies the completion predicate and the 404 semantics, which are the two things an agent needs to act on the response. Nothing essential is missing for a single-parameter read tool.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents quote_id. The description only restates that lookup is 'by quote_id' and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (immutable receipt for a bridge transfer) and enumerates exactly what the receipt contains: status, amounts, fee, route cost, and transaction hashes. This clearly separates it from siblings like n9t2_bridge_quote and n9t2_bridge_submit_payment, which act on the transfer rather than reporting on it.
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?
Gives real usage context: the 'FREE' tag signals no cost to call, the completion rule ('settled' + settlement.status 'completed') tells the agent how to interpret the result, and '404 means not ready yet' tells it to retry rather than treat it as an error. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for pre-transfer or payment steps, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.
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.
