ddg_order_status
Poll an agent-scoped DDG order status URL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| order_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Poll an agent-scoped DDG order status URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as polling frequency, side effects, or required permissions. The term 'poll' implies repeated calls, but that is not explicit.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words, but could include more detail without losing conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information on operational context like polling etiquette or error handling, making it adequate but not 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. It only hints at 'agent-scoped' but does not explain the parameters like agent_id or order_id meaning, default values, or usage.
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 action (poll), the resource (DDG order status URL), and the scope (agent-scoped). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ddg_submit_order or ddg_order_artifact.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no conditions or exclusions provided. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is made.
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.