List the live services on the ETC public Service Catalog — productized services sold under the ETC brand on behalf of the venture that delivers. Each service carries six required attributes: name, scope, price, delivery owner, quality bar, capacity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying 'live' services only and enumerating six required attributes, giving insight into output structure. However, it omits details about access control, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'List'. The first sentence defines the resource scope, and the second sentence lists expected attributes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the resource and its attributes. However, it does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., a list of objects) or mention any potential limitations like pagination, leaving minor gaps for a simple list tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by listing the output attributes, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'live services on the ETC public Service Catalog', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_gigs and list_events. It also explains what these services are (productized services sold under the ETC brand).
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 by defining the tool's scope (services on the ETC public Service Catalog), which helps differentiate from siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
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 action and resource: gigs have list/get/search/apply, reports have list/get, and events/services are separate. No two tools overlap in purpose or behavior.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_*, get_*, search_*, apply_to_*. The singular/plural distinction (get_gig vs list_gigs) is logical and consistent across resources.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool contributes to the core workflows of browsing gigs, applying, and accessing auxiliary information like reports and events.
The gig lifecycle is well covered: discovery (list/search), details (get), and action (apply). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to track or manage applications, but this is likely outside the server's intended agent-facing scope.
