exchange_get_attemptGet detail for a signal attempt. Read-only. Enforces attempt visibility — actors may only read their own private attempts. Returns attempt status and verification result if available. Attempt status is NOT an exchange state. Verification is Steward-controlled and cannot be self-asserted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_id | Yes | Signal ID. | |
| attempt_id | Yes | Attempt ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds significant non-obvious context: visibility enforcement, that verification is Steward-controlled and cannot be self-asserted, and that attempt status is distinct from exchange state. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 two-parameter read operation with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, when data may be absent, access restrictions, and domain-specific caveats. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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% because both signal_id and attempt_id are documented as IDs with length constraints. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detail for a signal attempt.' It further distinguishes the target by noting 'Attempt status is NOT an exchange state' and by focusing on 'verification result,' which separates it from sibling tools like exchange_get_signal and exchange_get_policy.
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 clearly implies this is the read-only way to retrieve attempt detail and provides important access context ('actors may only read their own private attempts'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use another sibling tool. Usage guidance is present but mostly implied.
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 targets a distinct concept: domain discovery, policy lookup, signal listing/detail, attempt detail, and preflight evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
All tool names share the exchange_ prefix and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern such as discover_domain, get_policy, and list_signals. The one minor deviation is exchange_preflight, which lacks an explicit object but remains clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only discovery and preflight server. Each tool earns its place and none feel redundant.
The read-only surface is fairly thorough for discovery, policy, signals, attempts, and preflight, but there is no tool to actually submit a proposal, create a commitment, or authorise an exchange. The descriptions repeatedly reference a real proposal flow that is not exposed, leaving agents unable to complete the core contribution workflow.