Retrieve an intent's fill progress, average price, cost versus arrival mid, fees, and block reasons to check execution status and diagnose stalled or blocked orders.
Fill progress, average price, cost vs arrival mid, fees and block reasons of an intent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: it never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are live or cached, or what happens with an unknown intent_id. The enumerated fields largely restate what the existing output schema already documents, so little behavioral context is added.
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?
One compact sentence with no padding, which is appropriately sized. However, it is a verbless fragment dense with domain jargon ('cost vs arrival mid', 'block reasons') that an unfamiliar agent cannot parse quickly.
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?
The tool is simple (one param) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the definition should say more about read-only semantics, data freshness, and overlap with approval_status.
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% for the single required intent_id, and the description only implies the linkage via 'of an intent'. It does not say where an intent_id comes from, whether order/transaction IDs are also accepted, or what format is expected.
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?
The description is a noun-phrase list of returned fields ('Fill progress, average price, cost vs arrival mid, fees and block reasons') with no verb, so the agent must infer that this reads status for an intent. The scope cue 'of an intent' is useful, but nothing distinguishes it from the close sibling approval_status. Purpose is inferable but not stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an intent_id must already exist from preview_order/submit_order), and no routing to alternatives such as approval_status or get_quote. The agent is left to guess the call site from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.