Prepare a transaction to submit job completion as the assigned agent. Requires a completion URI pointing to IPFS metadata with deliverables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID | |
| completionURI | Yes | IPFS URI pointing to completion metadata (e.g. ipfs://Qm...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the role requirement ('as the assigned agent') but leaves critical details vague: does 'prepare' mean it builds a transaction without sending? What are the side effects? Does it require authentication? Is it reversible? These gaps are significant for safe and correct usage.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. There is no fluff, but the phrase 'prepare a transaction' is slightly ambiguous given the tool's name. Still, it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
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?
Despite low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description leaves major contextual gaps: what is the return value? Does it actually submit the transaction or just prepare it? What happens after calling it? Without annotations or an output schema, this ambiguity makes it hard for an agent to confidently use the tool or understand consequences.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already fully explains jobId and completionURI. The description reiterates the IPFS requirement but adds no new semantics for jobId or the transaction preparation process, providing only marginal value beyond the schema.
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 purpose: 'Prepare a transaction to submit job completion as the assigned agent.' The verb 'prepare' and resource 'job completion' are specific, and the mention of 'assigned agent' adds context. It partially distinguishes from siblings like finalize_job, though the distinction between 'prepare' and 'submit' could be sharper.
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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a completion URI pointing to IPFS metadata with deliverables.' This implies usage after deliverables are prepared. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or reference alternative sibling tools like finalize_job or approve_job, leaving the decision to the agent without guidance.
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.
