agentfarm_agent_infoReturns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL. This metadata call does not run the model and does not require a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 context by stating 'does not run the model and does not require a bearer token,' which clarifies authentication requirements and confirms the absence of side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the return value and key behavioral traits. It contains no filler or repetition, and every clause adds meaningful 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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description supplies all necessary information: what it returns, that it is metadata-only, and that no token is needed. It is fully complete for an agent to decide when to call this 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 the baseline is 4. The description enumerates the return fields (identity, price, endpoint, URL), which helps the agent understand the tool's output, and there are no parameters that need additional explanation.
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 'Returns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL,' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that all deal with run lifecycle (create_run, get_run_result, get_run_status).
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 is a metadata call that does not execute the model and requires no bearer token, implying it is for pre-run configuration or informational purposes. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set makes the distinction obvious.
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 addresses a completely distinct concern: identity/metadata, creating a run, fetching status, and fetching results. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
The names follow a clear agentfarm_ prefix pattern, with three using verb_noun (create_run, get_run_result, get_run_status). 'agent_info' is a minor deviation as it lacks an explicit verb, but the pattern remains predictable.
Four tools is an appropriate scope for a simple asynchronous task runner. Each tool has a clear role, and no unnecessary tools exist.
The core lifecycle of create, status, and result is covered completely. A cancel operation or listing runs could be added but is not essential for the server's apparent purpose.