needs_intakeSend one demand sentence. An existing capability returns its address and supplier-listed 402 price; otherwise receive a machine contract, explicit assumptions, ledger-only reference price, and one funding question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | ||
| agent_key | Yes | Requester agent key. | |
| amount_usd | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conditional behavior and output types (address, supplier-listed 402 price, machine contract, assumptions, reference price, funding question). However, it does not disclose side effects like whether a contract is persisted, authorization requirements, or rate limits.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Send one demand sentence') and packs the conditional outcomes efficiently, making it easy to scan and process.
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 core behavior and output branches are described, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, with four parameters, only 25% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps around parameter usage, side effects, and edge cases, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 only 25% (only agent_key has a description). The description adds meaning for the 'need' parameter as a 'demand sentence' but provides no explanation for amount_usd, idempotency_key, or agent_key semantics beyond what the schema already gives, leaving most parameters underspecified.
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 uses a specific imperative ('Send one demand sentence') and explains the resource and outcomes: matching an existing capability returns its address and supplier-listed price, otherwise a contract package is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools like capabilities_list or bounty_get, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool is for turning a natural-language need into either a matched capability or a contract. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as capabilities_list, capability_call, or bounty_post, nor does it provide 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.
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.