Check status of a swap order. Poll every 20-30s. Lifecycle: waiting->confirming->exchanging->done. For heleket provider, status is checked via Heleket API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID from swap_create | |
| provider | No | Provider from swap_create response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, reinforcing read-only nature. Description adds polling behavior, lifecycle transitions, and provider-specific detail (Heleket API) beyond annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences deliver purpose, polling guidance, lifecycle, and provider note. No fluff; front-loaded with essential 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?
Covers key aspects: purpose, polling strategy, lifecycle, and provider-specific behavior. Lacks output format description, but given no output schema, the lifecycle states imply return values.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor context for provider parameter (Heleket API). Baseline 3 is appropriate; schema already explains parameters adequately.
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?
Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a swap order'. Polling and lifecycle details provide unambiguous scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swap_create or check_portfolio.
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?
Explicit polling interval (20-30s) and lifecycle sequence (waiting->confirming->exchanging->done). No direct 'when not to use' statement, but context is sufficient for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
