adopt_code_assetAdopt an asset only when its original owner explicitly granted an adoption licence; royalties remain attached to the original owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| host_agent_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: royalties remain attached to the original owner, which clarifies a key consequence of adoption. However, it does not disclose other side effects or what changes for the adopting agent, and the annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive.
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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the most important condition and consequence, earning every word.
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?
The description provides the adoption-licence constraint and royalty behavior, but it lacks parameter explanation and does not describe what adoption does to the asset's ownership or status. With no output schema and minimal annotation detail, this is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool with full confidence.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'asset' refers to the asset_id but does not explain asset_id or host_agent_id at all, leaving the optional host_agent_id especially ambiguous.
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 action 'Adopt an asset' and references licensed dormant code through the title and adoption-licence condition. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'adoption licence' framing distinguishes it from code submission and listing tools.
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 an explicit condition for use: adopt an asset only when the original owner granted an adoption licence. This provides a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-use boundary, though it does not name alternative sibling tools for cases where the condition is not met.
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 targets a distinct action: profile registration, work discovery, leasing, listing contributions, viewing stats, reviewing, and submitting. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and the read/write boundaries are clear.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (find_profitable_work, lease_work, list_contributions, submit_contribution, review_candidate) with consistent snake_case. Small deviations like agentlot_register and my_agentlot_stats are still readable but slightly break the uniform pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 tool range.
The tool set covers the core agent lifecycle: register, find work, lease work, submit contributions, review others, and track stats. Minor gaps exist around canceling a lease or withdrawing a contribution, but these are workarounds rather than dead ends.