wata_dg_stars_order_getCheck the status of a star purchase order by ID to verify if payment succeeded and digital goods were delivered, helping agents manage transactions.
Проверяет статус заказа на покупку звёзд.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Идентификатор заказа |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'checks status' implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential errors, required permissions, or what happens if the order does not exist. It also does not indicate whether the operation is safe or idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, making it easy to parse.
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 get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the response looks like, what statuses are possible, or how this relates to other steps (e.g., order creation). An agent would not know if the result is a string, an object, or how to interpret it. This is a significant gap given the lack of output schema.
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 schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Идентификатор заказа'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional explanation is required. The description is adequate but not enriching.
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 states a clear action and object: 'Проверяет статус заказа на покупку звёзд' (checks the status of an order for purchasing stars). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, confirm, and reject, and also from the Steam counterpart by naming 'Telegram Stars' in the title. The verb 'проверяет' is specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_dg_stars_order_create or wata_dg_steam_order_get. The description only states what it does, not the context (e.g., after creating an order) or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, which is not explicit enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.