Fetch full details for one onchain task by 0x 32-byte ID, including description, submission window state, platform fee, and pending actions. Use it to inspect a task before deciding to submit or act.
Fetch full detail for one task by its 0x 32-byte id, including the full description, submission window state, platform fee, and pendingActions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | 0x-prefixed 32-byte task id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a safe read ('Fetch') and usefully previews the payload contents, but says nothing about whether the task must exist, error behavior for unknown/invalid ids, auth requirements, or whether results are cached. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.
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 verb, identifier requirement, and returned fields. No filler, no redundancy; every clause earns its place.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the specific fields returned (description, submission window state, platform fee, pendingActions), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Minor gaps around failure modes and auth keep it from a 5.
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 the single taskId parameter is already documented as a 0x-prefixed 32-byte id. The description restates the same format ('0x 32-byte id') without adding syntax, validation, or error semantics, so the baseline of 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 (Fetch) and resource (full detail for one task), and enumerates exactly what is returned (description, submission window state, platform fee, pendingActions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/aggregate tools like taskmarket_list_open_tasks and taskmarket_market_stats.
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?
'Fetch full detail for one task' implies the single-item lookup use case, which is reasonable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., which sibling to call when you don't yet have an id) — nothing routes the agent among the taskmarket_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.