get_signing_instructionsThe canonical message format for submit_wish and endorse_wish, with a worked example and the server clock, generated by the same code that verifies signatures. Call this before your first write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: the output is generated by the same code that verifies signatures, implying trustworthiness and consistency, and it includes the server clock, signaling time-sensitivity. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence packs the essential content (canonical format, worked example, server clock, verification source), and the second delivers a clear call-to-action. Every clause earns its place.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why the content can be trusted, and exactly when to call it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to clarify. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 identifies the tool's output: the canonical message format for submit_wish and endorse_wish, with a worked example and the server clock. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by directly naming the write operations it supports, though it lacks a strong retrieval verb such as 'fetch' or 'return'.
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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before your first write.' This is clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling competes with this informational role.
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 maps to a distinct operation: browsing wishes, viewing a single wish's status, endorsing, submitting, fetching agent metadata, signing instructions, and listing delivered services. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the descriptions reinforce their boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (browse_wishes, check_wish_status, endorse_wish, get_agent_card, get_signing_instructions, list_services, submit_wish). The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a bounty board platform: wish submission, browsing, single-status lookup, endorsements, agent metadata, signing help, and the delivered-service catalog. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The core wish lifecycle is covered (submit, browse, check, endorse), along with supporting agent and signing tooling. However, there is no update, withdraw, or cancel capability for wishes or endorsements, and list_services is currently an empty placeholder, leaving minor lifecycle gaps.