draftJobValidate a job definition and return the deterministic direct-Hub funding quote. This records only the demand attempt; no claimable job exists until exact finalized escrow funding is observed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| definition | Yes | The same definition object accepted by POST /jobs/draft, including built-in inputSchemaRef and outputSchemaRef values. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that it records only a demand attempt and that no claimable job exists until finalized escrow funding is observed, which adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also promises a 'deterministic' quote, clarifying that results are reproducible. This is stronger than typical, though it does not detail failure modes or side-effect scope.
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 consists of two sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the crucial side-effect clarification follows immediately. Every word earns its place, making it compact and scannable.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side-effect (recording a demand attempt), and the return nature (deterministic quote). It does not explain what happens on invalid definitions or describe the quote structure, but the core usage is sufficiently covered. The absence of an output schema reduces the burden, so a 4 is justified.
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 100% for the single 'definition' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the definition is validated and that the quote is deterministic, but the parameter's own description already references POST /jobs/draft and the object structure. The tool description does not substantially extend the schema's meaning, so a 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 states a specific action (validate a job definition) and a specific outcome (return the deterministic direct-Hub funding quote), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like preflightJob or estimateNetReward, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it in many contexts.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as preflightJob, validateJobSubmission, or estimateNetReward. It does not mention any exclusion conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent without directional help for tool selection.
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 resource or action: build* tools differ by transaction type (credit, deposit, withdraw), get* tools read distinct state (account, credit, deposit, job, platform), and task-specific tools (claim, preflight, submit, validate, estimate, explain) are clearly separated. There is no apparent overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb+noun camelCase pattern (build, get, list, claim, preflight, submit, validate, estimate, explain, fetch, verify, refresh, create, quote, request). No mixed conventions or vague verbs are present.
With 22 tools, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3–15. While each tool appears purposeful and the domain is broad (auth, jobs, deposits, credit, withdrawals, verification), the overall surface feels somewhat heavy and may require agents to parse many options.
The tool set covers the main user workflows: sign-in, job discovery, preflight, claiming, submission, validation, reward estimation, eligibility explanation, deposit/credit lifecycle, and verification profiles. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to list one's own claims or cancel them), but these are not critical for the core earning flow.