Get live dispute status and resolution progress. See which tier the dispute is currently at, what evidence has been submitted, and the projected resolution timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disputeId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds transparency by disclosing the type of information returned (tier, submitted evidence, projected timeline) and describes the data as 'live', conveying freshness. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss authorization, error behavior, or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and then lists three specific data points (tier, evidence, timeline). It is efficient and contains no wasteful filler, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the agent will learn (tier, submitted evidence, resolution timeline). It lacks details on prerequisites or error conditions, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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?
The input schema defines a single `disputeId` parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description never mentions the parameter, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's min/max length. An agent can infer it is the dispute identifier from the tool name, but the description adds no explicit semantic value.
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 clearly identifies the tool as fetching live dispute status and resolution progress using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'dispute'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like raise_dispute and submit_evidence by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or submission.
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 implies usage for checking a dispute's current status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a disputeId from raise_dispute. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.