Check the status of an sBTC peg-out withdrawal request using a transaction ID or request ID.
Alias for sbtc_withdrawal_status. Check the status of an sBTC peg-out (withdrawal) request.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | No | Initiate-withdrawal transaction ID (used to resolve requestId) | |
| requestId | No | Withdrawal request ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. 'Check the status' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about what happens when the request isn't found, how pending/failed states are represented, or what data comes back.
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?
The alias note and purpose are front-loaded and tight, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' sentence is promotional and unrelated to this tool, so it does not earn 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?
A status-query tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain return values (status states, identifiers) and the absence-of-record behavior; it does neither. The alias pointer is useful but insufficient for the tool's full surface.
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%, so the txid and requestId semantics (including that txid resolves the requestId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.
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: check the status of an sBTC peg-out (withdrawal) request, and explicitly labels itself as an alias for sbtc_withdrawal_status. An agent can tell what it does, though it doesn't say whether this alias behaves any differently from the canonical tool.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus the identically-purposed sibling sbtc_withdrawal_status, nor versus sbtc_initiate_withdrawal/sbtc_withdraw. The only 'tip' points to earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.