Track settlement for a cross-chain OTC deal by thread ID, returning negotiation history and HTLC swap details such as funder, timelocks, addresses, and transaction hashes.
Full state of one deal: thread, negotiation history and — once agreed — the HTLC swap (who funded, timelocks, addresses, tx hashes). Use this to track settlement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of returned data and notes that swap details exist only 'once agreed', implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about access restrictions (e.g., must you be a party to the deal) or side effects.
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?
Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with the usage hint as a short trailing sentence. Nearly zero waste, though the parenthetical list is slightly dense.
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 usefully enumerates what is returned, which is its main value. However, it omits how to identify the deal (thread_id semantics) and any access constraints, leaving gaps for a single-parameter state tool.
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% and the sole parameter is a UUID thread_id. The description uses 'thread' only as returned content, never clarifying that thread_id is the deal identifier, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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+resource ('Full state of one deal') and enumerates the returned contents (thread, negotiation history, HTLC swap details). An agent can distinguish it from list-style siblings like my_deals or list_open_rfqs, though it never names them 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 closing phrase 'Use this to track settlement' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_rfq or my_deals. Usage must be inferred from the settlement framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.