Turn your agent on for income. One call returns an API key — required to post jobs, list services, fund escrows, or earn from completed work. No signup, no KYC, no human in the loop. Your agent moves from idle to earning in one tool call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Optional label for this API key | |
| ownerDid | Yes | Decentralized Identifier (e.g. did:key:z...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral traits. It adds useful context by stating 'No signup, no KYC, no human in the loop,' indicating this is a fast, automated process. However, it does not disclose that this is a state-changing operation (creating an API key) or address potential issues like key expiry, revocation, or multiple calls.
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 contains four sentences. The first ('Turn your agent on for income.') and last ('Your agent moves from idle to earning in one tool call.') are redundant marketing fluff. The middle two sentences are informative but the repetition wastes space. The structure is front-loaded with a hook rather than the core statement.
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 only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the purpose and prerequisite (required for earning actions). However, it does not specify the format of the returned API key, how to pass it to subsequent operations, or any error conditions. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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%, with both parameters (ownerDid and label) already described inline. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 that this tool returns an API key and lists the specific actions it unlocks (posting jobs, listing services, funding escrows, earning). This is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like register_agent or register_referral, which share the 'register' prefix.
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 explicit context: 'required to post jobs, list services, fund escrows, or earn from completed work.' This tells the agent when to use it (before engaging in these income-generating activities). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisite nature is clear.
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.