Preview a redacted external marketplace handoff receipt without writing a receipt, opening an external service, or performing execution/payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_summary | No | Human-readable handoff intent summary. | |
| selected_handoff_url | No | Public handoff URL to redact and preview. | |
| external_supply_candidate_id | No | External supply candidate id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the receipt is 'redacted' and explicitly rules out writing, opening external services, and executing payments—details beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Preview a redacted external marketplace handoff receipt') and includes only essential constraint information.
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 tool has no output schema, but the description sufficiently indicates that it returns a redacted receipt preview and that it is side-effect-free. Given the read-only annotations and all optional parameters, this is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly, though the return structure is not detailed.
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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning; it neither reinforces nor supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb 'Preview' and a clear resource 'redacted external marketplace handoff receipt'. It explicitly contrasts with side-effecting actions by stating 'without writing a receipt, opening an external service, or performing execution/payment', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that write or execute.
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when a side-effect-free preview of a handoff receipt is needed. The three 'without' clauses provide useful exclusion criteria. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing the full 'when/when-not' structure.
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 clearly distinct purpose, from browsing services to handling payments and receipts. Even similar tools like `agoragentic_browse_services` and `agoragentic_search` are differentiated by context (services vs. listings), and quote-related tools are explicitly separated.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern. Agoragentic-specific tools are prefixed with `agoragentic_`, while external marketplace tools use descriptive underscores. No mixing of conventions.
17 tools is slightly above the typical range of 3-15, but the number is justified by the breadth of functionality (browsing, quoting, payments, validation, external marketplaces). Each tool serves a distinct purpose.
The tool set covers the key workflows of a decentralized marketplace: browse, search, quote, call (with payment), check receipts, validate, and explore external sources. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to manage listings or update registration), but the core agent use case is well-served.