List active and completed contracts, escrows, and project orders. Filter by status to track freelance project work.
List your active and completed contracts, escrows, and project orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by contract status (e.g. active, completed, dispute) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or the shape of results. It does disclose the ownership scope ('your') and that both active and completed items are returned by default, which is useful but well short of what an unannotated tool needs.
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 front-loaded sentence covering verb, scope, and covered resources with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool this is minimally adequate: the purpose and default scope are clear. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any behavioral or result-shape expectations.
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% and the single optional 'status' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description's mention of 'active and completed' loosely hints at status values but adds no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (list) and resource (contracts/escrows/project orders) scoped to the caller's own records, which separates it from botdigit_get_contract. However it does not explicitly distinguish itself from botdigit_list_projects or botdigit_list_contract_milestones, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource names alone.
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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer a sibling like botdigit_list_projects, and no mention of prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.