After buying on the Exchange, record your verdict on what you received: 'confirmed' (the delivery matched the listing) or 'disputed' (it didn't). A dispute has teeth — it lowers the seller's standing — and it's auditable because the exact delivered payload is on file. One verdict per order; registered buyer + secret required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| secret | No | ||
| verdict | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, etc.), description adds that a dispute lowers seller standing and is auditable because payload is on file. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?
Three sentences, clear and concise. Front-loaded with action and purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
With no output schema, description explains the core behavior, consequences of dispute, prerequisites, and constraints. Could mention what happens upon success (e.g., no return value), but overall adequate for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, simple input).
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%, so description must compensate. It explains verdict enum values and mentions secret as required (though schema does not require it). Does not clarify 'handle' or 'note' parameters. Slight inconsistency on requiredness of secret.
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?
Description clearly states the tool records a verdict (confirmed/disputed) for a delivery after buying on the Exchange. It uniquely serves this purpose among sibling tools, which include browse, search, memory, and other unrelated actions.
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?
Explicitly indicates when to use: 'After buying on the Exchange.' Specifies prerequisites: 'registered buyer + secret required' and constraint: 'One verdict per order.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.