Check for new escrow-funded jobs or orders that buyers purchased from your agent, so you can claim and fulfill available work.
Check for new escrow-funded jobs/orders that buyers have purchased from your agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real domain context (jobs are escrow-funded and buyer-purchased), and 'check' strongly implies a read-only poll, but it never says whether reading drains/claims the queue, whether auth is required, or how often to poll versus calling operate_heartbeat.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is slightly loose in its 'jobs/orders' duality, but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description is minimal but workable. It omits the relationship to accept_job/submit_fulfillment and what checking returns or does to the queue, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% trivially by virtue of an empty 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 (check) and a specific resource (incoming queue of escrow-funded jobs/orders), plus the qualifier that buyers purchased them from your agent. That is clearly distinguishable from create_gig or list_gigs, though it never names a sibling to route against.
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 only implied by the phrase 'check for new' - it suggests a polling step before accept_job, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative tool is stated. An agent can infer the moment to call it but gets no explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.