Prepare a transaction to disapprove a job as a validator. Requires club.agi.eth ENS subdomain and a 15% validator bond.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID to disapprove | |
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating 'Prepare a transaction' (indicating this is not an immediate submission) and mentioning the 15% validator bond prerequisite. However, it does not disclose what the return value is, whether the transaction needs to be signed/broadcast separately, or any failure conditions that might arise if the bond is not met.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides prerequisites. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient.
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 is competent for a 2-parameter tool but missing key details given the lack of an output schema. It fails to explain what the prepared transaction looks like or how it should be used afterwards, which is critical for a 'prepare' action. It also does not mention whether the bond is deducted exactly at preparation time or after submission. Overall, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes both jobId and ensSubdomain clearly. The description adds context about the ENS subdomain being required for validator identity and the bond, but it does not provide parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already contains.
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 tool's action: 'Prepare a transaction to disapprove a job as a validator.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'approve_job' tool by explicitly stating the opposite action. The role of validator adds context that makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage context by specifying prerequisites ('Requires club.agi.eth ENS subdomain and a 15% validator bond'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispute_job or approve_job. It provides conditions for use but no exclusions or guidance on choosing between similar tools.
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.
