SCRIPTMASTERLABS — Bid-cast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond them — the engine scores bids, picks a winner, and may perform an on-chain escrow verification — but it omits what happens to losing bids, whether closure is reversible, and what a failed on-chain check does.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the mechanism and the optional branch. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a nested `escrow` object, the description leaves important gaps: no return value indications, no failure modes, and no statement of irreversibility. The core mechanics are covered, but an agent would still be guessing at the lifecycle consequences.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the one documented parameter (signature) is well described in the schema itself, and the description gives real meaning to the otherwise opaque `escrow` object by explaining it is an optional escrow authorization verified on-chain. need_id gets no explanation beyond the obvious. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close a Match for a Need') and then describes the mechanism: running the match engine over bids and selecting a winner. That is enough to separate it from siblings like get_match (read) and submit_bid (write a bid). It stops short of contrasting itself with confirm_delivery, which is the nearest lifecycle neighbor.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says the Need must be open, that bids must exist, who is authorized to close, or how this differs from the sibling confirm_delivery step. The phrase 'runs the match engine over its bids' only weakly implies the precondition that bids exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, but the description adds important non-obvious behavior: escrow capture and a 95/5 payout split, limited to escrow-backed matches. It does not cover authorization or reversibility, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause adds either the action, the resource, or the financial effect.

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 destructive financial mutation with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description covers the core trigger and payout split. However, it omits authorization requirements, signature semantics, non-escrow behavior, and error or return expectations.

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 only 33%, with just the signature parameter documented. The description does not explain the required match_id or optional delivery_ref, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Confirm delivery of a Match') and adds the financial effect. It does not explicitly distinguish this action from sibling close_match, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not explain how to choose between confirm_delivery and close_match. The phrase 'when the match is escrow-backed' describes a conditional effect, not invocation guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on permissions, what happens with an unknown id, or whether the match must belong to the caller.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes at the cost of detail rather than through disciplined editing.

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 read with rich annotations and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, 'Match' is domain-specific and the description never hints at what a match represents or what the return contains.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and the phrase 'by id' conveys that match_id is a unique identifier. It doesn't say the id format or where to obtain one, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Match') scoped by id, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like close_match or list_bids, but the read-by-id purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus close_match, list_needs, or other siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the single-record read operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination, ordering, volume expectations, or visibility/auth notes — despite openWorldHint suggesting potentially unbounded external data.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the scope stated immediately. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely economical.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the agent without return-shape, ordering, or pagination cues, and openWorldHint implies the result set may be large or external. Too much is left to inference.

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 0%, so the single required parameter need_id is documented nowhere. The phrase "on a Need" only hints that need_id identifies a Need; it gives no format, source, or validity information to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"List Bids on a Need" gives a verb (List), a resource (Bids), and a scope (on a Need), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings such as list_needs or get_match, and it never clarifies what a "Bid" or a "Need" is in this domain.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., submit_bid vs list_bids, or list_bids vs get_match). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scoping context ("open, unexpired") but does not mention pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the undocumented parameter semantics.

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 read-only listing tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, more detail about filtering and expected results would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only says "Optional capability filter" without explaining matching behavior, accepted values, or format for the capability parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List ... Needs") and narrows scope with "open, unexpired." It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like post_need, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_bids.

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?

It says what can be filtered but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_bids or get_match. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative-selection cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no auth requirements, no statement about duplicate needs, no indication of what posting publishes or to whom, despite openWorldHint signaling external visibility.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. However, the second sentence outsources the only substantive detail to an external reference rather than carrying it, which is brevity at the cost of usefulness.

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 mutating, open-world create with a nested untyped payload and no output schema, the definition is thin: it omits required fields, response shape, and post-creation effects. The external schema pointer is the sole mitigation and is fragile if that path is not resolvable by the agent.

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 single parameter is an untyped nested object at 0% schema coverage, and the description only offloads its shape to an external file (/schemas/need.schema.json) that may not be retrievable at call time. Saying "the full Need object" usefully signals a complete create rather than a patch, but the required fields remain undocumented in-band.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Post a Need to the board") that an agent can distinguish from list_needs and submit_bid, which are read/list and bid-side operations respectively. It stops short of naming the sibling boundary explicitly, but the create-a-need action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as submit_bid or list_needs, no prerequisites (must a match or bid exist first?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the entire workflow position of this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'open Need' precondition, but does not explain side effects, validation behavior, or what happens after submission beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the argument list follows directly.

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 mutation tool with a nested Bid object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the Bid object's contents or expected behavior enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, and the description only says 'need_id and the full Bid object.' It names both parameters but gives no structure or required fields for the nested Bid object, leaving the main parameter underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a Bid on an open Need.' This makes the action clear and separates it from siblings like list_bids and post_need by verb and target resource. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 'on an open Need' gives an implied precondition for use, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.