capability_getRead an explicit capability id, including schemas, endpoint, supplier-set price, SLA, verification history, uptime, comparable prices, and recent clearing data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_id | Yes | Explicit capability UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Read' and enumerates the specific data returned (schemas, endpoint, price, SLA, etc.), which gives good transparency. However, it does not mention error cases, permission requirements, or any limitations, so it is not a perfect 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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and then lists the included data. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded for quick understanding. There is no verbosity or irrelevant detail.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture: it states the action, the target resource, and the full scope of returned data. It could optionally mention behavior for invalid IDs or non-existent capabilities, but for most use cases, the description is sufficient.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'capability_id' as a UUID, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema—it restates that it is an 'explicit capability id'. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers all parameter semantics.
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 function: 'Read an explicit capability id' followed by a detailed list of returned data. It is specific about the resource (capability) and the action (read), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capabilities_list (which likely lists all capabilities) and capability_call (which likely invokes).
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 implies usage: you should use this when you have a specific capability ID and want its full contract details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusionary or comparative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.
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.