Read an existing paid pipeline run and its cached signed result without broadcasting payments or calling providers. Check recovery.action for unresolved work.
Read an existing pipeline, including cached signed result, without broadcasting payments or invoking providers. No wallet signer or blockchain RPC required. Inspect recovery.action for unresolved work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety profile itself and does it well: it is a pure read, does not broadcast payments, does not invoke providers, and needs no wallet signer or blockchain RPC. That is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation-adjacent domain. It stops short of stating whether access is scoped or whether the cached result can be stale.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, each adding distinct value: what it does, the constraints under which it runs, and a pointer to the actionable recovery.action field. No filler.
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, but the description compensates somewhat by naming the cached signed result and the recovery.action field. However, for a tool with two fully required, wholly undocumented parameters and no annotations, it leaves the auth token's origin and the run_id's source unaddressed.
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 for two undocumented parameters and does not: neither run_id nor access_token is explained, nor is where the access_token comes from or the paid_ hash format. The schema's regex and length bounds partially cover the gap, but the text adds nothing.
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 (Read) and resource (an existing pipeline), and the read-only framing implicitly distinguishes it from the pipeline_prepare/pipeline_invoke siblings. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.
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?
"Inspect recovery.action for unresolved work" hints at the retrieval use case, and 'without broadcasting payments or invoking providers' implies when to prefer this over an execute-style sibling. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.