Prepare a transaction to approve/validate a job as a validator. Requires an ENS subdomain under club.agi.eth or alpha.club.agi.eth. Validator must post a 15% bond (min 100 AGIALPHA).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID to approve | |
| ensSubdomain | Yes | Your club ENS subdomain label only (e.g. "jester" for jester.club.agi.eth) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites (ENS subdomain, bond) and the fact that it only 'prepares' a transaction, not executes it. However, it does not describe what happens after preparation, what the transaction contains, or any side effects. This is partial transparency.
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 three sentences long and every sentence carries substantive information: what the tool does, the identity requirement, and the bond requirement. There is no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the prepared transaction looks like or what the tool returns. It covers prerequisites well but omits the result/outcome of preparing the transaction and how the bond is posted. Given moderate complexity, it is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 already covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about prerequisites (ENS subdomain, bond) but does not explain parameter semantics further. Since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action: 'Prepare a transaction to approve/validate a job as a validator.' It names the specific resource (a job) and the role (validator), and the context of sibling tools (e.g., disapprove_job, dispute_job) helps distinguish this from other job-related actions. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives important conditions for use: requiring an ENS subdomain under club.agi.eth or alpha.club.agi.eth and posting a 15% bond. It implies the tool is for validators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like disapprove_job or finalize_job. No exclusions are provided, making the guidance useful but not comprehensive.
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 has a distinct purpose with clear boundaries: job lifecycle (create_job, apply_for_job, cancel_job, request_job_completion, finalize_job, expire_job), validation (approve_job, disapprove_job, dispute_job), metadata handling (fetch_job_metadata, upload_to_ipfs), and queries (list_jobs, get_job, get_agent_reputation, check_agent_identity, get_protocol_info, register_agent). No overlapping functionality exists.
All 17 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_job, list_jobs, fetch_job_metadata). The naming is highly predictable, with verbs like create, get, list, apply, approve, cancel, check, upload, and register consistently paired with relevant nouns.
17 tools is well-scoped for a job management platform covering the full lifecycle from creation to completion, including validation, disputes, metadata handling, and queries. Each tool earns its place, with no redundancy, and the count aligns with the complexity of the domain.
The toolset provides complete coverage for the AGI Alpha job platform: full CRUD/lifecycle (create, list, get, apply, cancel, complete, finalize, expire), validation workflows (approve, disapprove, dispute), identity and reputation management (register_agent, check_agent_identity, get_agent_reputation), metadata handling (upload_to_ipfs, fetch_job_metadata), and protocol info. No gaps are apparent.
