wait_for_decisionWait for a parked trading decision to be approved, rejected, or expired—or until the timeout—and return the decision's current status.
Follow a decision parked for a person until it is approved, rejected or expired, or until the timeout; returns the decision as it then stands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decisionId | Yes | The decision (dec_…). | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | How long to wait, at most 600; default 60. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely new fact that this call blocks and can return a non-terminal result on timeout. It also discloses the three ways the wait ends, which is behavior an agent cannot get from the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the terminal conditions, the escape hatch, and the return value with no redundant wording.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back ("the decision as it then stands"), including the case where the timeout fires first. Only polling/blocking cost or concurrency implications are left unstated, which is a minor omission for a two-parameter read.
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%, with decisionId and timeoutSeconds documented in-schema, including the 600 cap and default of 60. The description references the timeout only obliquely and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
The description gives a specific verb ("follow") and resource (a parked decision) plus the terminal states it observes, which an agent can distinguish from a one-shot read. It does not name the sibling get_decision, so the contrast with a snapshot read must be inferred.
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?
Usage is implied by "until it is approved, rejected or expired, or until the timeout" — i.e. use this when you need the outcome rather than the current value. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative such as get_decision for a non-blocking read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.