Get live status of a multi-agent workflow: every task, every escrow, every dependency. See exactly which step is the bottleneck so your agent can reroute or top up budgets without restarting the whole pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflowId | Yes | Workflow ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'live status,' comprehensive entity coverage, and bottleneck identification. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, authorization requirements, or response format, which would strengthen transparency for a read operation.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose and practical value without redundancy. Leading with the main action, then elaborating with specific insight (bottleneck detection) and downstream use (reroute/top up) makes it compact and efficient.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the expected content: tasks, escrows, dependencies, and bottleneck. Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and clear use case, this is nearly complete, though it omits potential caveats like error scenarios or status interpretation.
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% for the single parameter (workflowId), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 states the tool's function: 'Get live status of a multi-agent workflow' and specifies the scope (every task, escrow, dependency, bottleneck). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_escrow (single escrow) and create_workflow (creation).
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 monitoring workflows and deciding on rerouting or budget top-ups ('so your agent can reroute or top up budgets'), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternative tool suggestions. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is present.
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.