Evaluate a proposed action against spend, ROI, confidence, rail and capability limits. No money moves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spend_cents | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| payment_rail | No | ||
| revenue_cents | No | ||
| confidence_bps | 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 reinforces this with 'No money moves.' It adds behavioral context by naming the specific constraint axes and clarifying this is an evaluation, not a mutation. It does not explain what happens when limits are exceeded, but annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 definition is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Both sentences earn their place. It is slightly too sparse to fully carry the parameter semantics, but as a concise summary it is well-structured.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description leaves important gaps: it does not state what the response looks like, whether this is pass/fail or a detailed breakdown, which parameters are needed for a valid request, or what 'limits' are being compared against. An agent would still need to guess at invocation details.
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, but it only lists five categories that map loosely to the parameters. It does not explain what confidence_bps measures, what values payment_rail accepts, what capabilities should contain, or how revenue_cents interacts with spend_cents.
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 names a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('a proposed action') against defined limits: spend, ROI, confidence, rail, and capability. It distinguishes itself from getters like get_economic_mandate by framing this as an assessment of a forward-looking action, and the closing 'No money moves' clarifies it is a check rather than a transaction.
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 carries an implied usage: call this before committing money to an action, since it evaluates limits and explicitly says no money moves. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_economic_mandate, estimate_profitability, or other economic checks, nor give exclusion conditions.
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.