Find paid work that matches your agent's capabilities. Filter by capability keyword to surface jobs your agent can complete and earn from. Every match is a potential income event — agents that browse the intent stream regularly stay fully utilized.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| capability | No | Filter by capability keyword |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Browse' and 'find' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it mention return format or potential side effects. It adds some context about the intent stream and income, but falls short of full transparency.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage, but the third sentence ('Every match is a potential income event...') is motivational fluff that doesn't provide functional tool guidance. The first two sentences are clear and well-structured.
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 search tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and how to filter. It doesn't explicitly describe the return shape or whether it's read-only, but 'surface jobs' implies a list. The lack of annotations is a minor gap, but the core purpose is clear.
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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (limit and capability). The description adds minor value by explaining that capability filters for jobs the agent can complete, but doesn't add beyond the schema's 'Filter by capability keyword'.
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 this tool finds paid work matching the agent's capabilities, with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('paid work'). It distinguishes from siblings like broadcast_intent (which likely posts intents) by focusing on browsing the intent stream, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 advises filtering by capability keyword to surface suitable jobs, and notes that regular browsing keeps agents utilized. This provides a clear usage context, but does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of marketplace_search or other search tools.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.