Get Intake
Check the status of a previously submitted broker intake request.
Returns the current status, any matched agents, and timestamps.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intake_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns ('current status, any matched agents, and timestamps') and mentions the 200 response. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors, authentication needs, or side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple status getter.
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 short and front-loaded with the title 'Get Intake' and a clear one-sentence purpose. The 'Responses' section is slightly generic but not wasteful. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (status, matched agents, timestamps) and the expected success response. It lacks error handling details and example usage, but for a simple status check it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention 'intake_id' at all, nor its format or source. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's basic type/required information.
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 purpose: 'Check the status of a previously submitted broker intake request.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('broker intake request'), and the name 'get_intake' aligns with the sibling 'submit_intake' to distinguish retrieval from creation.
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 when to use it: after a 'previously submitted' intake request. This provides clear context for use, and the sibling tool 'submit_intake' makes the alternative obvious, but the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.