Check the status of a pending Gitbank command by its confirm_code. Returns status: pending, confirmed, executed, or expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm_code | Yes | The confirm_code returned by a request_* tool |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds value by listing the four possible status values, which is beyond annotation info. Clearly discloses what the tool returns.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and input, second lists outputs. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what to provide and what to expect. The return values are explicitly listed, making it complete.
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% and confirms the parameter description. Description adds context by stating the confirm_code comes from a request_* tool, linking it to the workflow. This adds meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states action 'Check the status', resource 'pending Gitbank command', method 'by its confirm_code', and lists possible statuses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that either perform requests or retrieve other data.
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?
Implies use after receiving a confirm_code from a request_* tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.
