get_escrow_jobReads one ERC-8183 job from the escrow contract Dolphin hires through: who paid (client), who works (provider), the amount held, its status (open, funded, submitted, completed, rejected, expired), its deadline and the delivered hash. Read from BNB Chain when called, so it is proof rather than Dolphin's word.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job id, e.g. "56882". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what it uniquely adds: the read happens on BNB Chain at call time rather than from a cache, which makes it authoritative proof. It also lists the status vocabulary (open, funded, submitted, completed, rejected, expired), which is behavioral context no structured field carries.
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?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the returned fields; the closing clause about on-chain proof earns its place by justifying trust in the result. Slightly verbose in the field list but nothing wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by naming every returned field and the status values. It stops short of covering failure modes (unknown job id, reorg/revert) or what an expired/rejected job looks like on return, which would complete the picture for a live-chain read.
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% and the single jobId parameter already has an example ("56882"). The description adds nothing about parameter format or validation, so the schema does all the work — 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 and resource: reads one ERC-8183 job from the named escrow contract, and enumerates exactly what comes back (client, provider, amount, status, deadline, delivered hash). No sibling tool reads escrow jobs, so no collision to disambiguate against.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and by 'one job ... by id', but the description never states when to reach for this versus other lookups (e.g. listing runs, checking a rule). No exclusions or prerequisites are given, though none of the siblings overlap meaningfully.
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.