check_statusCheck the status of a swap by its ID. Returns the current swap state including deposit detection, swap progress, and egress information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| swapId | Yes | The swap ID returned by start_swap or start_dca_swap |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by indicating what status information is returned, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers all needed context.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema's description of the swapId parameter. 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 checks swap status by ID, listing specific return components (deposit detection, swap progress, egress info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are for quotes or starting swaps.
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?
Usage context is implied (after starting a swap) but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is provided. The description does not mention when not to use or compare to other tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: status checking, quotes, asset listing, swap initiation. The two quote tools (get_native_quotes and get_quotes) differ in input units, which is clarified in descriptions but could still cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_status, get_native_quotes, get_quotes, list_assets, start_dca_swap, start_swap).
With 6 tools covering quotes, asset info, swap initiation, and status checks, the count is well-scoped for a swap service without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core swap lifecycle: get quotes, list assets, start swaps (including DCA), and check status. Missing potential operations like cancel or list past swaps, but these are not essential for the primary use case.