agoreum_wait_for_fundingPolls an order until the chain confirms its payment and the status leaves pending_payment, waiting up to timeout_seconds. Use it to verify USDC escrow funding before delivering.
Poll an order until the chain confirms its payment (status leaves pending_payment), up to timeout_seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-rc.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call blocks and polls, what ends the wait, and that timeout_seconds caps the wait. It does not say what is returned or raised on timeout, whether it short-circuits if already funded, or how often it polls — meaningful gaps for a blocking 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the termination condition and the bounding parameter in the same clause. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema and no annotations means the description must cover results and failure modes, and it omits the timeout outcome and already-funded behavior. For a blocking, poll-based tool that is a real gap, though the core semantics are conveyed.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains timeout_seconds as an upper bound on waiting but gives no default or behavior at expiry; order_id is only implied as the thing being polled, with format left entirely to the schema. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.
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 — polling an order until its payment is confirmed on-chain — and names the concrete termination condition (status leaves pending_payment). An agent can distinguish it from the one-shot agoreum_get_order, though it never names that sibling 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 usage is only implied: the tool is for waiting after an order has been placed and payment submitted. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over agoreum_get_order polling, nor when not to use it (e.g., order already funded).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.