Get a task with deposit address, funded status and settlement txs.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by naming the returned fields (deposit address, funded status, settlement txs), which no structured field provides. However, it says nothing about lookup-miss behavior, required permissions, or whether the data is live versus cached.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the payoff of calling it lead the sentence. Nothing here needs trimming.
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 low-complexity one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient: the agent knows the resource and roughly what it will receive. It is incomplete on the two things that actually matter here, the meaning of 'id' and the behavior when no task matches.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the single required 'id' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The description does not clarify whether 'id' is the task id, a numeric ticket, or an on-chain identifier, leaving the one parameter it takes entirely uninterpreted.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a task') and enumerates what comes back (deposit address, funded status, settlement txs), which distinguishes it from list_tasks and the task-mutation siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus list_tasks, list_offers, or the accept/claim/dispute task siblings. The agent must infer that it is a single-record lookup from the singular noun alone.
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.