t2000

t2000_jobs

Check escrow job status on t2000: with a jobId get full on-chain details and actionable steps; without it, view your job inbox as buyer or seller.

Instructions

Escrow-job status. With jobId → the on-chain Job (state, parties, amount, deadlines), the actions THIS wallet can take right now, the buyer's spec/requirements (content-verified against the on-chain hash), and — once delivered — the delivery content. Without jobId → this wallet's job inbox from the indexer (role: seller = jobs you were hired for, buyer = jobs you funded). Read-only. Mirrors t2 job watch [--mine] + t2 job spec.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "t2000_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Inbox mode: which side of the table (default seller)
`jobId`	No	A Job object id (0x…) for full detail (omit to list your jobs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv10.14.1Jul 28, 2026
Removedv10.13.4Jul 27, 2026
Addedv10.2.0Jul 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' and describes the returned data in detail, including on-chain job state, actions, spec, and delivery content. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise yet comprehensive, front-loaded with 'Escrow-job status', structured by jobId presence, and includes CLI mirrors. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and behavior for both modes. It could mention idempotency or performance, but overall complete for a read-only status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The tool description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, explaining the effect of jobId presence/absence and the returned data for each parameter, especially for jobId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is for 'Escrow-job status' and explains two modes: with jobId returns detailed job info, without returns job inbox. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like t2000_job_hire or t2000_job_deliver.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use with or without jobId and the role parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many job-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.