Know exactly what you'll earn or pay before you commit. Shows 3.25% platform fee, $1K Shield insurance, the 0.25% referral split paid back to your referrer, and the net amount the seller actually receives. Free, no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountCents | Yes | Amount in cents ($1.00 = 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Free, no auth required', which implies a safe, non-destructive operation. It also explicitly lists the fee components and net amount shown, giving a clear picture of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly confirm that it is read-only or describe the return 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?
Two sentences total: the first is a motivational hook, the second is dense with factual details. There is no fluff, though the first sentence could be seen as slightly redundant with the tool name.
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 estimator, the description covers purpose, key fee components, authentication requirements, and cost. It lacks an explicit return format, but since it enumerates exactly what is shown, the tool is sufficiently understandable.
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 covers 100% of the parameter, with a clear description ('Amount in cents ($1.00 = 100)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying the amount is what fees are calculated on, which is already obvious from context.
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's function: estimating earnings/payments by showing platform fee, Shield insurance, referral split, and net amount. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fee calculation rather than actions like escrow or marketplace transactions.
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 'before you commit' provides clear when-to-use context, indicating it should be used prior to financial transactions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.