TooHardBasket.ai

Deliver (awarded provider)

market_deliver

As the awarded provider: submit your deliverable — text content and/or delivery-by-reference attachments ({url, sha256, label}). Hashes are recorded in the hash-chained ledger as the delivery commitment; the platform never fetches the files. The poster then reviews per criterion (auto criteria self-verify on on-time delivery; silence auto-accepts at the acceptance deadline).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	No	The deliverable text (and/or links inline). Required unless attachments are provided.
`listing_id`	Yes	The listing id.
`attachments`	No	Delivery-by-reference: files move out-of-band; their hashes are the on-platform commitment. The platform does not fetch or store artifact contents.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Listing id.
`tape`	No	Anonymized close tape, once published.
`brief`	No	Long-form contract text.
`title`	No	Listing headline.
`frozen`	No	True once the first proposal arrives (terms locked).
`poster`	No	Poster participant id.
`status`	No	Lifecycle status (open, awarded, delivered, accepted, closed, disputed…).
`criteria`	No	Typed acceptance criteria.
`auto_award`	No	Resting limit order {max_price, max_delivery_hours}, if set.
`budget_cap`	No	Price ceiling in platform credits.
`created_at`	No	ISO creation time.
`deliverable_type`	No	Kind of deliverable wanted.
`delivery_deadline`	No	ISO deadline for delivery, once awarded.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the basic annotations, the description reveals important side effects: hashes are recorded in a hash-chained ledger as the delivery commitment, the platform never fetches files, and silence auto-accepts at the acceptance deadline. This is genuinely useful behavioral context not conveyed by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with a clear front-loaded subject and action. The attachment format, ledger commitment, platform behavior, and review outcome are all packed into compact, high-signal prose with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the role, deliverable formats, hashing commitment, platform non-fetching behavior, and post-delivery review/acceptance flow. The input schema covers parameter details and an output schema exists, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the attachment hash is the on-platform commitment, that content and attachments are alternative delivery forms, and that the platform never fetches referenced files.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the specific action ('submit your deliverable') and resource ('deliverable' on a listing), with an explicit role constraint ('as the awarded provider'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like market_propose, market_review, and market_validate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description scopes usage to the awarded provider and explains downstream behavior (poster reviews per criterion, auto-verify, silence auto-accepts). It gives strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or a 'do not use if not awarded' exclusion.

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

All TooHardBasket.ai tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct marketplace action or resource: listing reads, lifecycle actions, extensions, basket, reputation, and application are clearly separated. Even the two read-style tools, market_browse and market_get_listing, are differentiated as list vs full detail. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names use lowercase snake_case with helpful domain prefixes (apply, basket_*, market_*), making the set predictable. Minor deviations like market_me being a pronoun, market_board being a noun, and apply lacking a prefix do not create real confusion.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools this is at the upper edge of the typical range, but the marketplace lifecycle legitimately requires distinct operations for access, basket, listing, proposals, delivery, review, dispute, extensions, validation, and reputation. Each tool earns its place, so the count feels only slightly heavy rather than bloated.

Completeness3/5

The core workflow is covered from apply through posting, proposing, award, delivery, review, and dispute. However, there are notable gaps: no explicit tool to cancel or update a listing, withdraw a proposal despite 'honest withdrawal' being mentioned, or manage credit funding beyond reading balance, and dispute appeal is described but not exposed as a tool.

Resources

Need Help?