respond_settlementAccept or decline the other side's settlement offer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| accept | Yes | true to accept the offer, false to decline it. | |
| buyer_token | No | buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task. | |
| settlement_id | Yes | The settlement offer you are answering (from get_task). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / accept / descriptionAdded value: +"true to accept the offer, false to decline it."Input schema / properties / settlement_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The settlement offer you are answering (from get_task)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden for a high-stakes mutation. It never says what accepting triggers (escrow release, task completion) or what declining does (return to dispute/negotiation), nor whether the action is reversible. The buyer_token note about not needing it as the posting buyer is the only behavioral hint, and that lives in the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action and the decision object, zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully documented. However, for a financially consequential accept/decline decision, the description omits any consequence or workflow context, leaving an agent unsure what accepting commits it to.
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 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the buyer_token exception. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (accept/decline) and a specific resource (the other side's settlement offer). This clearly separates it from propose_settlement, which initiates rather than answers an offer, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'the other side's settlement offer' implies usage (responding to a received offer, presumably after get_task/propose_settlement), but no explicit when/when-not or alternative path (e.g. countering via propose_settlement) is given. Usage must be inferred.
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.