Check how a previously submitted sweep is progressing. Returns the current status (pending, simulating, executing, bridging, completed, failed), the transaction hash once there is one, and the error message if it failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sweepId | Yes | The sweep ID returned from submitting a sweep |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only; the description adds context by listing possible statuses (pending, simulating, etc.) and mentioning return fields (tx hash, error), complementing annotations without contradiction.
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 a single sentence with a list of return values, concise and front-loaded, though it could be more structured with bullet points for readability.
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?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (status, tx hash, error), and is sufficient for correct invocation.
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% for the single parameter sweepId, which is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond its purpose.
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 checks sweep status, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('sweep'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_sweeps by focusing on a single sweep's progression.
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?
The description implies use after submitting a sweep, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like list_sweeps, nor does it mention prerequisites.
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 clear, distinct purpose: finding balances, listing chains, quoting sweeps, checking status, explaining concepts, listing history, and registering API keys. No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a consistent 'zerodust_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., get_balances, list_sweeps). 'info' is a slight deviation (single verb instead of verb_noun), but it's minor and still clear.
7 tools are well-scoped for the focused domain of recovering stranded gas tokens. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
Covers core workflows: discovery, pricing, status tracking, history, and explanation. The actual sweep execution requires a signing key, which is intentionally excluded from the hosted server (handled via SDK). Minor gap: no cancel/abort tool.