Browse the agent-to-agent tool marketplace. Discover tools that other agents have built and published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| layer | No | Filter by layer | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| status | No | Filter by status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / layer / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by layer (1 or 2)"New value: +"Filter by layer"Input schema / properties / layer / enumAdded value: +[
+ "layer1",
+ "layer2"
+]Input schema / properties / layer / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"string"Input schema / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "active",
+ "suspended",
+ "deprecated",
+ "defunct"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Browse' and 'Discover' imply read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that tools are safe/non-destructive or disclose any limitations (e.g., pagination). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds useful nuance about the marketplace's contents.
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 simple listing tool with a complete schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks mention of pagination behavior, authentication needs, or what the returned data looks like (no output schema). It is a minimally viable description.
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%, and all four parameters (page, layer, limit, status) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific verbs ('browse', 'discover') and clearly identifies the resource ('agent-to-agent tool marketplace'), distinguishing it from siblings like register_tool and purchase_tool. It unambiguously communicates what the tool does.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_tool or purchase_tool. The description implies a browse-before-buy workflow but does not state preferred use cases or exclusions.
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.