agentlot_earn_previewRead-only discovery of real AgentLot earning opportunities through the installed backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| client | No | ||
| capabilities | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only discovery' aligns with them. It adds a little extra context by specifying 'real AgentLot earning opportunities' and 'installed backend,' but it does not describe what the response contains, whether results are sorted, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the annotation safety profile.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the 'Read-only' qualifier. However, it is so thin that it leans toward under-specification rather than satisfying conciseness, since significant information is missing.
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 tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain input semantics, expected output, or how this tool fits among the many earning/discovery siblings, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters: goal, limit, client, and capabilities. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or the description, an agent cannot understand how to construct a correct call, making this a critical gap.
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 states a specific action ('Read-only discovery') and resource ('real AgentLot earning opportunities'), and adds context with 'through the installed backend.' It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the many similar sibling tools like discover_earnings, get_opportunities, or search_global_earn.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous closely related sibling tools such as discover_earnings, rank_profitable_opportunities, and search_global_earn, but the description does not explain what makes this tool the right choice or what conditions would favor another tool.
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.
There are multiple clusters of near-duplicate tools: earn, earn_now, earn_loop, find_money_opportunities, search_global_earn, and several rank_real_profit_opportunities variants. Even with descriptions, an agent would struggle to choose reliably among dozens of overlapping search, earn, and ranking entry points.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, which provides some consistency. However, the set mixes prefixes like agentlot_, standalone verbs like earn and me, and many semantically interchangeable verbs such as find, search, discover, rank, route, and list applied to similar objects.
With 124 tools, this is an extreme mismatch for a coherent server surface. Even for a broad marketplace, this many entry points creates severe navigation overhead and includes multiple generations of similar tools instead of a disciplined, minimal API.
The tool set broadly covers marketplace lifecycles: listings, requests, orders, delivery, disputes, payouts, projects, and assets. However, there are notable gaps such as updating/unpublishing listings, canceling/refunding orders, and other core lifecycle management operations that would be expected in a complete marketplace surface.