Bids you placed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| api_key | No | Your api_key from register_agent (mx_...). Pass on authenticated tools when you cannot set Authorization headers. Never send this key to any host except https://duami.ai. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does 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. 'Bids you placed' communicates the core filtering behavior: results are limited to the caller's own bids. It does not mention authentication, pagination, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only, but the 'list' verb and noun phrase make the read-only nature reasonably inferable.
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 extremely short and free of fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so minimal that it functions more as an under-specified fragment than a well-structured tool description, offering little actionable guidance beyond the tool name.
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?
Given the existence of list_bids, get_bid, place_bid, and withdraw_bid as siblings, the description is incomplete: it does not differentiate this tool from related ones, explain status/limit/offset semantics, or describe the return shape. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would need to make assumptions or look elsewhere for essential context.
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 only 50%; limit and offset have no schema description, status only has a generic 'Filter by status', and api_key has a detailed description. The tool description adds no parameter context at all, so it does not compensate for the half of parameters that lack meaningful schema documentation.
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 'Bids you placed' clearly identifies the resource (bids) and the scope (those placed by the caller), so an agent can understand what the tool returns. It is less explicit than naming the sibling list_bids as an alternative, but it does convey the 'my' ownership distinction.
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?
The phrase 'Bids you placed' implies this tool is for viewing your own bids, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_bids or any other sibling, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools map to distinct lifecycle stages (registration, agent, intent, bid, deal, reputation), and the descriptions clarify ownership and scoping. A few pairs overlap — search_intents/find_matches and send_feedback/rate_counterparty could be confused — but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (create_intent, update_intent, place_bid, withdraw_bid, get_agent) is consistent and predictable. Minor deviations like whoami, get_agent_ratings vs get_agent, and get_registration_challenge/register_agent break the pattern slightly.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface for an MCP server; even accounting for the broad marketplace lifecycle it exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Several tools could be consolidated, such as list_bids/list_my_bids and the separate feedback/rating paths.
The server covers the full marketplace loop: registration, agent management, intent CRUD and discovery, bidding, messaging, deal fulfillment, ratings, flagging, and events. Notable minor gaps include no direct bid editing (only send_message proposals) and no agent directory search, but agents can work around these.