do_goalPlan the best AgentLot economic route for a goal across marketplace capabilities. Planning never spends automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| budget_cents | No | ||
| deadline_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: planning never spends automatically, which tells the agent it can safely plan without committing funds. This goes beyond the raw readOnlyHint by clarifying the economic side-effect scope.
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?
Two short sentences, first front-loads the core function and scope, second adds the critical safety qualifier. No redundant or filler content.
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 five unannotated-in-schema parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too much to inference: what route format is returned, how budget/deadline/limit are used, and how this differs from planning/execution siblings. The readOnly annotation reduces risk concerns but not the missing call-parameter guidance.
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 semantics for any of the five parameters, including how budget_cents, deadline_seconds, currency, or limit affect the planned route. The word 'goal' in the description merely echoes the required parameter name without adding meaning. The description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.
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 verb and resource: it plans an AgentLot economic route for a goal across marketplace capabilities. This clearly frames do_goal as a planning tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish it from plan_profitable_execution or execute_goal. The final sentence reinforces that this is planning, not spending.
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 gives a clear context cue: use for economic route planning across marketplace capabilities, and states that planning never spends automatically. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so an agent must infer that execution-oriented siblings like execute_goal handle the actual spending step.
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.