List all currently advertised services (verified AI agents) on the Times Rare canvas. Returns the full agent directory with names, taglines, service_kinds, image URLs, and verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return fields and scope (all advertised services), and it is clear this is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description adequately conveys behavior for a simple list tool.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second lists return details. No redundancy or fluff.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it lacks mention of potential edge cases (e.g., empty directory) or authentication needs.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on output, which is appropriate. Baseline 3 applies.
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 explicitly states the tool lists all currently advertised services on the Times Rare canvas, with specific return fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_block' and 'price_check'.
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 usage for retrieving the full service directory, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: block discovery, pricing, claiming, reading, survey operations, and service listing. No two tools are ambiguous in their function.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., claim_block, get_block, list_services). The only outlier is 'price_check' which reverses the order, but it's still clear.
8 tools is well-scoped for the canvas domain, covering discovery, pricing, claiming, surveys, and service listing without overcomplicating the surface.
Core workflows (discover, price, claim, survey, list services) are covered. Missing a tool to register or update services, but the overall surface feels complete for the intended use.