Free universal fallback discovery. Call this when the agent cannot satisfy a task with its current capabilities. Magnet returns a matching HumanMirror tool or records an aggregated capability gap in the Machine Demand Graph. This tool consumes no credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Describe the missing capability or task the agent needs to complete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the dual outcome (returning a matching tool or recording a gap) and the no-credit cost, which is good, but it does not address what the return value looks like or whether recording the gap is a persistent mutation.
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 with no filler: purpose, trigger condition, outcome, and cost are all included. The most important 'fallback discovery' framing is front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, what it does, and possible outcomes. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the shape of the returned HumanMirror tool or what the agent should do next, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 100%, and the query parameter already says 'Describe the missing capability or task the agent needs to complete.' The tool description reinforces this but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 leads with 'Free universal fallback discovery' and states that it returns a matching HumanMirror tool or records a capability gap, making the verb and resource clear. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like nexus_call and outcome_run by framing it as the fallback when current capabilities are insufficient.
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 explicitly says 'Call this when the agent cannot satisfy a task with its current capabilities,' giving an unambiguous trigger condition. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
The tools divide cleanly into nexus routing and outcome contract flows, but magnet_resolve and nexus_search both perform free task-to-tool matching, which could cause an agent to pause over which discovery path to use. All other tools have clearly distinct roles.
Every tool follows the same noun_verb snake_case pattern: magnet_resolve, nexus_call, nexus_search, outcome_quote, outcome_run, outcome_verify. The prefix groups reinforce the two subsystems while keeping a single consistent naming convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a bridge/marketplace server: two for standard Nexus discovery and execution, one fallback discovery mechanism, and three for the Outcome contract lifecycle. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The server covers the full agent-facing workflow: discover a tool, execute it, and separately quote, run, and verify success-only Outcome contracts. It also records capability gaps through magnet_resolve, leaving no obvious dead end for the stated purpose.