Get websites that need verification. Verify them to earn 10 search queries each.
Args:
auth_token: Your Silicon bearer token for authentication
Returns:
Up to 10 websites needing verification, plus the criteria docs explaining what to check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth token requirement and return size limit (up to 10), but does not mention error behavior, whether the queue is empty, or if it has side effects (though 'get' suggests read-only). Lacks detailed behavioral context.
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 with clear Args and Returns sections, no fluff. Every line adds value.
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?
Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the auth requirement, and the reward. Minor gaps like empty queue handling are not critical.
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 provides only a string with default; the description clarifies it's a Silicon bearer token used for authentication, giving purpose and type context beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a queue of websites needing verification, and adds the incentive context (10 search queries). This differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_website or list_verified_websites.
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 implies this is the entry point for verification tasks ('Verify them to earn...'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_verified_websites or search_websites. No exclusions are provided.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (levels, queue, websites, verification) and actions. check_agent_friendliness and get_website both retrieve info about a specific site, but the former is a quick status check while the latter provides full criteria details, so they are distinguishable. No other overlapping tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, submit, verify, check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and nouns indicate the target. No mixed conventions or stylistic inconsistencies.
8 tools is well-scoped for a directory service with submission, verification, search, and listing capabilities. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the core workflows: submit, verify, search, list, and check status. However, there are no update or delete operations for websites, which is a notable gap for managing directory entries. The absence of these operations could limit maintenance workflows.