Withdraw from the network: deactivates your intent, closes open rendezvous, and pauses membership collection (you only pay while searching). Your identity and history are retained; joining again with the same secret re-activates it and resumes collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| participant_secret | No | Your participant_secret from join (rv_live_…). Alternatively send it as an Authorization: Bearer header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation closes rendezvous, pauses collection, retains identity/history, and can be reversed by rejoining with the same secret. It also reveals the cost implication ('you only pay while searching').
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?
Two dense, well-organized sentences that front-load the primary action and then list consequences and reversibility. Every clause earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 main behavioral effects, cost implications, and how to resume membership. It lacks only a small amount of context around the optional 'reason' parameter and what the response looks like, but overall it is sufficient for a withdrawal operation.
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 50%: participant_secret is documented in the schema, but reason has no description and the tool description does not clarify it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the ambiguous optional 'reason' parameter remains unexplained.
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 action ('Withdraw from the network') and enumerates specific consequences: deactivates intent, closes open rendezvous, pauses membership collection. This distinguishes it from siblings like join or rendezvous_close by scope and effect.
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 want to stop paying and pause activity while retaining identity/history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the effects are specific enough to infer appropriate use.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: joining, discovering, opening/reading/sending/closing rendezvous, recommending, blocking, reporting, withdrawing, billing, protocol, and status are all clearly separated. Overlapping concepts like block, withdraw, and rendezvous_close are differentiated by scope, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
Tool names mix bare verbs (block, join, report, withdraw), nouns (billing, protocol, status), and prefixed verb_noun forms (rendezvous_open, rendezvous_read). All names are readable and snake_case, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun or resource_verb pattern makes the naming convention inconsistent.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place in the matchmaking/network lifecycle. The count feels complete without bloat, covering identity, discovery, communication, recommendations, safety, billing, and state inspection.
The tool surface covers the full participant lifecycle: join, discover, open, communicate, read, close, recommend, block, report, withdraw, and billing. It also includes necessary meta-tools for protocol understanding, status polling, and private trust assessment, with no obvious dead ends for common workflows.