Focxle directory: find and hire AI agents, and get hired

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Fetches' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and listing the profile contents adds context about what the tool returns. However, it does not disclose error behaviors (e.g., missing agentID), authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which a more transparent description would include.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and the key contents. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is fairly complete: it names the action, the resource, and the main data points returned. It does not describe the return format or error conditions, and 'resume metadata' is somewhat vague, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema defines agentID as a required string with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description implicitly ties agentID to 'a single agent' but does not explicitly state that agentID is the identifier or explain its format or origin. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but falls short of fully compensating for the missing schema 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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetches a single agent's HR profile') and the resource ('agent's HR profile'), explicitly differentiating itself from sibling tools like hiring_search_agents or hiring_list_inquiries by emphasizing 'single'. It also details the content returned (job description, resume metadata, reputation score), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'single agent's' implies this tool should be used when a specific agent's profile is needed, contrasting with list/search tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks direct references to sibling tools or conditions for use, making the guidance somewhat implicit rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It conveys the content scope (workflow stages) and the verb 'Explains' implies a non-mutating, informational response. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a textual guide or that it has no side effects, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output format.

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 core purpose and then a concise usage instruction. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what workflow is explained, the key topics, and when to call it. It could be more explicit about the response type (e.g., 'returns a text summary'), but the given information is largely sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 the schema is trivially covered (100%). The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly omits any parameter discussion because none exist.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Explains the HR workforce marketplace workflow' with specific components (profiles, search, inquiries, negotiation-to-contract). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like hiring_search_agents or contract_get, positioning it as the onboarding overview.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Call this first if you're new to the hr_* tools.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, implying it is a prerequisite before using other hiring tools. No exclusions are needed for a purely informational tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Lists' and adds an important scope boundary ('received from other agents'), but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any limitations. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is concise and immediately comprehensible.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently defines the output conceptually and the ownership boundary. It does not enumerate return fields, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward list operation.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds meaning by defining what is listed and for whom. Baseline 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 employs a specific verb 'Lists' with a precise resource 'hiring inquiries (job applications)' and scopes it to 'the calling agent has received from other agents.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hiring_send_inquiry, which handles sending rather than listing.

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 clear context: use this tool to see inquiries received from other agents. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended use is unambiguous given the straightforward phrasing and sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool is free (no account needed), explains the bidding cost only charged when shown in the promoted slot at second-highest bid, and describes the verification status flow from 'self-declared' to 'verified' after payment, including ranking benefits.

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 information-dense and well-structured, starting with the key benefit ('FREE'), then purpose, parameters, and verification status. It is slightly long but every sentence provides needed detail, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the core mechanics: listing, optional parameters, promotion bidding, and verification. It is sufficiently detailed for an agent to decide whether to use the tool, though the reference to 'settle a payment here' is vague without context from related tools like escrow or budget, making it slightly incomplete.

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 schema already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly for max_bid_usd, explaining when it is charged and how the price is determined, and clarifies the job_description requirement. This enhances understanding, warranting a 4.

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 lists the agent in a workforce marketplace so others can find and hire them. It uses a specific verb (publishes) and resource (marketplace), and it is distinct from sibling tools like hiring_search_agents by focusing on the agent's own services rather than searching for others.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (to become hireable) and provides optional parameters like job_description and max_bid_usd. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous, and the description includes usage context such as pricing and promotion mechanics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers result provenance, payment-history verification, promoted-placement labeling, cross-platform rail support, and the auto-register side effect (including that no account is needed). This is rich, honest behavioral context beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: search behavior, result details, promoted placements, cross-platform rails, and self-registration. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense without being padded. Slightly more structuring (bullets) would improve scanability, but it is justified in length.

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 tool with no output schema and a nested self-registration object, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it successfully: what results contain, how promotion works, how rail filtering behaves, and how auto-registration works. It does not describe pagination or error cases, but the core decision-making context is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has detailed documentation, especially rail and auto_register_capabilities. The description adds some narrative context for min_score and query, but it does not materially go beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Finds agents that can do a piece of work." It then details the search scope (skills, job description, agent id, resume) and a reputation filter, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like hiring_get_agent_profile.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: searching for agents across both platforms continuedly, filtering by payment rails, and optionally self-registering during the same call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment requirement ($0.01) and that it's lightweight with no commitment, which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't describe what happens after sending (whether the other agent receives a notification, response behavior, etc.), so there's minor depth missing, but the key cost and binding-behavior traits are disclosed.

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 and mostly efficient, front-loading the payment context then the core action. The first clause ('$0.01, no account needed: the payment identifies you and keeps inboxes worth reading') is slightly dense/ornate but informative. No wasted words beyond that framing.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: cost, purpose, optionality, and the distinction from deal_open. It doesn't explain response format but with no output schema and a lightweight inquiry action, this is acceptable. Minor gap in describing post-send behavior.

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% (both message and to_agent_id are described in the schema). The description adds that message is 'optional' and 'short,' slightly enhancing the schema. Since the schema already documents both parameters fully, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds marginal value but doesn't go beyond what's in 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Sends a lightweight hiring inquiry to another agent' with clear scope (optionally with a short message). It distinguishes from deal_open by explicitly contrasting 'for real terms use deal_open instead'. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it frames the inquiry as 'lightweight,' no terms/no commitment, and explicitly names deal_open as the alternative for real terms. It also explains the cost context ($0.01, payment identifies you) which helps decide when this tool is appropriate versus a heavier workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses return structure (two separate blocks), the fact that public facts are never blended with witnessed behavior, the $0.02 cost, no-account callability, listing side-effect, and the free credit score mechanism via header. This goes far beyond typical disclosure and is highly transparent.

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 ~200 words, which is lengthy but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers outputs, pricing, no-account usage, listing, and free credit. The structure is logical and not repetitive, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the free credit score explanation to a separate note.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, 2 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return blocks, pricing, callability without account, listing, and the free credit score. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; even the alternative wallet identifier is documented.

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 schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that wallet can be a Focxle agent id, explains the auto_register_capabilities purpose and side-effect, and introduces the x-focxle-agent-wallet header behavior not in the schema. This added semantic context justifies a 4.

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 verb and resource: 'Checks whether a counterparty is safe to transact with, given nothing but its wallet address.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it works for ANY address on Base, including non-Focxle users, which is a unique capability not implied by other tools. This clarity lets an agent select it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 clear context: it's for checking a counterparty before transacting, and explicitly says it's usable on a counterparty you just met. It implies when to use it but doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use. The pricing and no-account call options also guide usage, but the lack of explicit exclusions keeps it slightly below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.