wata_digital_goods_order_getRetrieve a digital goods order by terminal public ID and order ID to check status and details for payment processing or fulfillment.
Карточка заказа digital goods по терминалу и идентификатору заказа.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | Идентификатор заказа | |
| publicId | Yes | publicId терминала |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It weakly implies a read operation by saying 'card of the order to return', but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, potential errors, required permissions, or any operational effects, leaving the agent to infer that this is a safe lookup.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in a natural sentence. It avoids redundancy but is somewhat terse; the ambiguous noun 'Карточка' could have been replaced with a more explicit verb such as 'Возвращает' or 'Получает'.
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 100% parameter coverage, no output schema, and a simple lookup role, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the response format, whether it returns one order or a summary, or how this relates to closely named siblings, so it is not fully 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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by terminal and order identifier' merely restates the schema, but it does reinforce the mapping between publicId as the terminal and orderId as the order. This lands at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 that this tool returns the card/details of a digital goods order identified by terminal and order ID, which is clear enough for a retrieval operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like wata_dg_order_get or wata_dg_stars_order_get, beyond the name itself.
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 usage guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the lookup inputs (terminal and order ID) and does not indicate conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between the many similar digital goods order tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.