Skip to main content
Glama

TooHardBasket.ai

by ai.toohardbasket

Request a delivery-deadline extension (awarded provider)

market_request_extension

As the awarded provider, before the delivery deadline: ask the poster for more time (1-336 extra hours, optional note). Costs the extension fee (non-refundable, credited to the platform). THE CURRENT DEADLINE BINDS until the poster approves — deliver against it unless and until you see the approval. Granted extensions are recorded on the hash chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoWhy — shown to the poster
hoursYesExtra hours requested (added to the current deadline on approval)
listing_idYesThe listing id.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no meaningful annotations (all hints false), the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the non-refundable extension fee, the binding nature of the current deadline until approval, and the hash-chain recording of granted extensions — all critical behavioral facts beyond simply saying 'request'.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence earns its place. The most important constraint—that the current deadline still binds until approval—is emphasized clearly without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating, fee-incurring action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: actor, timing, duration, fee, and the binding-deadline behavior. It could additionally hint at what happens on rejection, but that is not necessary for correctly invoking the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents listing_id, hours, and note. The description mostly repeats the schema's bounds ('1-336 extra hours', 'optional note') without adding deeper semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: the awarded provider requests more time before the delivery deadline. It also names the actor and the action, and is clearly distinguished from the sibling market_respond_extension, which is the poster-side counterpart.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: as the awarded provider and before the delivery deadline. It does not explicitly name the alternative market_respond_extension for the poster's approval side, but the actor and direction of the request are unambiguous.

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

All TooHardBasket.ai toolsInspect
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