agent_oneshot_get_statusPoll 1Shot public relayer status for a submitted task ID to check if its onchain transaction is pending, completed, or failed; optionally include receipt logs.
Poll 1Shot public relayer status for a submitted task ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logs | No | Whether to include receipt logs. | |
| taskId | Yes | 0x-prefixed 32-byte 1Shot task ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait, that this queries a public relayer (implying no auth), but says nothing about whether the call blocks or returns immediately, polling/rate-limit behavior, or what a terminal vs pending status looks like. That is a significant gap for a polling tool.
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 with no filler; the resource and the required input are both in the first clause. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's polling semantics.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return information, and it omits both. An agent cannot tell what status values to expect, whether the task is complete, or whether to keep polling, which is exactly what a status-check tool needs to convey.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (taskId format, logs flag). The description only alludes to taskId and says nothing about the logs parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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?
States a specific verb (poll), resource (1Shot public relayer status), and key input (submitted task ID), which distinguishes it from agent_oneshot_relay_calls (submission) and agent_oneshot_get_capabilities/get_fee_data (static info). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
'for a submitted task ID' implies the usage context: this is the follow-up call after relay_calls has accepted a task. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative, and no guidance on how often to poll or when to stop.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.