Check the status of an sBTC withdrawal request using either its request ID or initiating transaction ID.
Check status of an sBTC withdrawal request by requestId or initiating txid.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: 'Check status' clearly signals a non-mutating read, which is useful. Beyond that it says nothing about what status values are returned, whether a request can be pending/failed, or any auth needs, so an agent gets safety signal but no behavioral detail.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but the second sentence is a promotional pointer to `earning_opportunities` that does nothing to help select or invoke this tool — a sentence that fails to earn its place in a status-check definition.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent is left with no idea what a returned 'status' looks like or how to interpret a pending vs. completed withdrawal, which is exactly what a status tool exists to convey.
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%, so both `txid` and `requestId` are already documented in detail, including that txid resolves the requestId. The description only restates these two options and adds no syntax, format, or mutual-exclusivity guidance beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource (check status of an sBTC withdrawal request) and names the two supported identifiers. It does not, however, disambiguate from the near-identically named sibling `sbtc_withdraw_status` also present in the tool list, which is the main source of potential mis-selection.
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?
It states the two lookup keys and thereby implies the usage (poll a withdrawal after initiating it), but never says when to use this versus `sbtc_withdraw_status`, `sbtc_initiate_withdrawal`, or `get_transaction_status`. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.