Fetch the verdict for a paid async job — polling is FREE and the verdict is already paid for. Returns status running|done|failed, with the full verdict when done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job id returned by a paid verification tool call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that polling is free and returns status and full verdict when done. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or whether the result is cached, but is adequate for a simple poll.
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 with key information front-loaded: what it does (fetch verdict), key behavioral prompts (polling free, paid already), and return format (status + verdict). Every sentence is essential; no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (status and verdict). With one parameter well-documented in schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention polling interval advice or how to interpret statuses, but not a major gap.
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% (job_id documented in schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states it fetches the verdict for a paid async job and returns status and verdict. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is the polling endpoint after a paid verification, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 mentions polling is free and verdict is paid for, implying usage after a paid verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like second_opinion_verify or second_opinion_quick.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: pricing, quick reasoning, web research verification, multi-lens panel, free trial, and result fetching. No overlap.
All tools follow the 'second_opinion_' prefix with a clear, descriptive suffix (pricing, quick, verify, panel, try, result), forming a consistent pattern.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a service offering different verification tiers and pricing information. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: pricing discovery, free trial, quick reasoning, web research verification, advanced multi-lens panel, and result retrieval. No obvious gaps.
