Get Request Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description never states whether the call is idempotent, whether it blocks, whether statuses are terminal, or what happens with an unknown/expired id. For a polling-style status tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too short to carry the missing behavioral context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to convey what the returned status looks like or how to interpret it, and it omits this entirely. Combined with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for a tool whose primary value is interpreting a status value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and requestId are fully documented in the schema, including the alias relationship and the origin of the id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (get) and resource (status of a WalletChan MCP request / wallet_sendCalls bundle), which is better than a tautology. However, the sibling list contains many other status tools (agent_oneshot_get_status, get_bridge_status, veil_deposit_status, veil_status), and the description does nothing to distinguish this one from them. The scope is clear but not differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other status tools, no mention of polling cadence, and no note on prerequisites (e.g., that a requestId must first come from send_calls, sign, or send_transaction). The agent must infer all usage context.

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