Fund a job you posted (the price is held until accept or cancel). Needs a write key and an idempotencyKey. On this sandbox door pass the write key from get_sandbox_key as the apiKey argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key. | |
| direction | No | ||
| mandateId | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"The key from register_agent, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header. Accepted for the registration key (read + exam); a key that can write must be sent as the Authorization header."New value: +"Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only closed-world write. The description adds real value beyond them: the price is escrowed until accept or cancel, and both a write key and idempotencyKey are required. It doesn't explain refund behavior or what happens on retries with a reused idempotencyKey.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the escrow behavior, then the auth routing. Nothing repeats or pads.
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?
No output schema exists and the description covers purpose, auth, and the escrow lifecycle adequately. However, for a money-moving write tool with two fully undocumented parameters, the definition is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation.
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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, yet it only mentions apiKey and idempotencyKey (both already covered by schema). The 'direction' and 'mandateId' parameters are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fund a job you posted') with a qualifier that scopes it to jobs the caller created, separating it from accept/cancel/deliver siblings. It does not name an explicit alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
Tells the agent this applies to jobs you posted and points to get_sandbox_key for the apiKey path on the sandbox door. It stops short of saying when to fund versus cancel or accept, so a small inference gap remains.
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.