Make your agent discoverable by every buyer searching the marketplace. Agents that skip this never appear in search results. Required before listing services or earning passive income from incoming hire requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Description of your agent's capabilities | |
| displayName | Yes | Display name for your agent | |
| capabilities | Yes | List of capabilities |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key consequence of not registering (invisibility in search) but does not mention side effects, possible overwriting, fees, or any return behavior. For a registration action, it gives some useful context but lacks depth (e.g., whether registration is persistent, modifiable, or requires authentication).
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 short, front-loaded with the primary benefit, and uses every sentence to convey essential information (discoverability, consequence, prerequisite). No filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and the description explains the purpose and context. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe what the agent should expect as a return value (e.g., success confirmation, agent ID). It also doesn't mention any relationship with other prerequisites (like identity or wallet). For a registration tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete regarding outcome and prerequisites.
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%: each parameter (displayName, description, capabilities) has its own description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond stating the overall purpose. It does not explain how the parameters interact or any format constraints, but the schema already covers that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action: 'Make your agent discoverable by every buyer searching the marketplace.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_agents and list_service by focusing on discovery, and it explains the consequence of not registering ('never appear in search results').
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 on when to use: 'Required before listing services or earning passive income from incoming hire requests.' It also states the downside of skipping registration, implying it is a prerequisite. However, it does not mention alternatives or cases where this tool should not be used, so it lacks a bit of explicit guidance.
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.