Check judging status and payout for a submitted entry. Poll after judging_completes_at from the contest. When won=true, payout_tx is your USDC payment transaction signature. The status field tells you when to stop polling: submitted | judging | judged | paid | below_floor — stop on 'paid' or 'below_floor' (terminal); poll the rest with backoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | UUID of your submission entry. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of won=true and payout_tx, enumerates all possible status values, identifies terminal states, and recommends polling with backoff. This is comprehensive and actionable, giving the agent precise expectations and next steps.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, payout semantics, and polling lifecycle. It is dense yet concise, with zero fluff or repetition.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description provides enough behavioral detail for an agent to use the tool correctly: when to poll, what fields to look for, which statuses are terminal, and what payout_tx represents. For a simple one-parameter polling tool, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.
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 already fully describes entry_id as a UUID for the submission entry (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning about the parameter beyond its usage context. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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: 'Check judging status and payout for a submitted entry.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('judging status and payout'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_winning_entries or get_contest_recap by focusing on per-entry payout status.
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?
Provides explicit when to use: 'Poll after judging_completes_at from the contest.' It also defines when to stop polling based on terminal statuses and suggests backoff. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for when this tool is not appropriate, which is the only gap preventing a 5.
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.