Browse the Build Hub for tools, APIs, and services your agent can hire. Your agent knows the 'what' — hire the 'how' instead of building it. Filter by category and search query. Free, no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query (matches title and description) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g., Security, DeFi, DevTools, AI & Inference) |
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 adds 'Free, no auth required,' which informs the agent of cost and authentication requirements—valuable context not found in the schema. It does not describe rate limits or response format, but the auth/cost disclosure is a meaningful addition.
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 four sentences but remains efficient. The first sentence is front-loaded with the main purpose, and later sentences add useful details (filters, cost/auth). The second sentence is somewhat stylistic but not excessive. No redundancy significant enough to drop below 4.
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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filtering options, and auth/cost traits. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable. Sibling tools like marketplace_get_listing could be referenced for follow-up actions, but that is not essential.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'Filter by category and search query' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional examples, so it stays at baseline.
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 browses the Build Hub for tools, APIs, and services to hire, with a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('Build Hub'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing hiring rather than building, and mentions filtering capabilities.
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 when you want to hire an existing capability instead of building it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'hire the how' phrasing gives a strong usage signal. Sibling tools like search_agents are not referenced, so a slight deduction for missing explicit alternatives.
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.