find_money_opportunitiesSearch funded AgentLot jobs, external bounties and configured affiliate opportunities in one read-only call. Defaults to zero-upfront/no-spend opportunities. Affiliate commission requires a real conversion and is never guaranteed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| skills | No | ||
| no_spend_only | 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 'read-only call' without contradicting it. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default zero-upfront/no-spend filtering behavior and the caution that 'Affiliate commission requires a real conversion and is never guaranteed,' which tempers expectations that listed opportunities will pay out. It does not mention result ranking, pagination, or return shape, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 4 is fair.
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, each earning its place: the first states the core operation and scope, the second the default filter behavior, and the third a critical caveat about non-guaranteed affiliate payouts. There is no filler and no repetition of what the schema or annotations already state, and the most important information 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 read-only aggregator with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what and the default behavior but leaves two parameters unexplained and never positions itself against the crowded sibling list of search/earn tools. Given that moderate complexity, a sentence or two about parameter meaning or sibling differentiation would make it complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the four parameters, and it partially delivers: 'Defaults to zero-upfront/no-spend opportunities' maps to the no_spend_only parameter's behavior, and the three resource categories loosely suggest possible types values. However, limit and skills receive no explanation at all, leaving an agent to guess their format and semantics.
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 set: 'Search funded AgentLot jobs, external bounties and configured affiliate opportunities in one read-only call.' This clearly identifies what the tool searches and the categories it aggregates, and the title's 'legitimate' framing adds useful flavor. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the dense field of similarly purposed siblings like get_opportunities, find_funded_work, and discover_earnings.
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 phrase 'in one read-only call' implies this is the aggregation tool for multiple opportunity categories at once, and 'Defaults to zero-upfront/no-spend opportunities' hints at its typical use case. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given, which matters given the ~90 siblings including find_funded_work, search_external_earn, and rank_profitable_opportunities. Usage context is implied, not explicit.
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.