cow_order_status
Status of a CoW order by uid.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| chain | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| validTo | No | ||
| explorer | Yes | ||
| executedBuyAmount | No | ||
| executedSellAmount | No |
Quietwork Swap
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "properties": { + "executedBuyAmount": { + "type": "string" + }, + "executedSellAmount": { + "type": "string" + }, + "explorer": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "type": "string" + }, + "validTo": { + "type": "integer" + } + }, + "required": [ + "status", + "explorer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Added
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention that chain is required to identify the order, what happens if the uid is unknown, or any auth/rate considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a tool with two required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least clarify the required chain parameter and the read-only nature of the lookup; it does neither.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description mentions uid only, adding no format or meaning beyond the parameter name, and completely omits the required chain parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (CoW order) and the lookup key (uid), so an agent can tell this is a status-check tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status tools like debridge_order_status or shift_status, but the CoW qualifier does most of the work.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling status tools, nor any prerequisite context. The phrase 'by uid' implies it is used after an order exists, but no conditions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.