capabilities_listList supplier-owned callable contracts with supplier-set per-call price, SLA, verification history, and uptime shown as separate fields. Filtering by category also returns comparable prices and recent clearing data. The buyer must choose a capability id; Licium never auto-routes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | Optional machine-readable category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include separate fields for price, SLA, verification history, and uptime, and that category filtering introduces additional data. Critically, it states Licium will never auto-route and the buyer must choose a capability id, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it omits pagination behavior and response structure, keeping it from a 5.
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 two sentences, densely packed with relevant information. It front-loads the core action and resource, then elaborates on output fields and a critical usage note. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers the tool's primary purpose, output fields, category-dependent behavior, and an essential caveat about manual selection. It lacks explicit output schema details (since none is provided) and does not differentiate from all sibling tools, but for a filtering list operation with only two optional parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
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 description adds meaning to the 'category' parameter by explaining it filters results and also returns comparable prices and recent clearing data, which goes beyond the schema's 'Optional machine-readable category.' The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but its schema constraints (default, min, max) are self-explanatory, and schema coverage is 50%, so the description compensates for the ambiguous parameter.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing supplier-owned callable contracts. It specifies the exact resource type and distinguishes itself from siblings like capability_get (which retrieves a single capability) and capability_call (which invokes one) by using 'List' and describing the output fields.
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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to see supplier-owned callable contracts with their pricing, SLA, verification history, and uptime. It also notes that filtering by category enhances results with comparable prices and clearing data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few could be confused: 'needs_intake' and 'request_source' both accept natural language requests, and 'bounty_self_gate' vs 'check_received_work' both involve checking work against criteria. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun ('get_source', 'list_sources') while others use noun_verb ('bounty_get', 'capability_call'). There are also oddities like 'agent_register' and 'bounty_counter'. The mixed conventions are still readable but not predictable.
With 26 tools, the server exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and feels heavy. Many tools are specific, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., subscription tools).
The domain is broad (bounties, capabilities, sources) and most core workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps: no explicit tool to accept a bounty submission, no unsubscribe or management for subscriptions, and no way to remove or deprecate a capability. These missing lifecycle operations could cause agent workarounds.