gateway_capability_refreshIssue a fresh short-lived zero-spend capability token for the same principal/run after verifying the current token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| capability_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses useful traits: the token is short-lived, zero-spend, principal-bound, and requires verification of the current token before issuance. It does not describe failure modes, side effects, or whether the previous token is invalidated.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and key constraints without filler. It does not repeat schema fields or title information unnecessarily.
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 simple tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and important constraints like zero-spend and short-lived. It leaves open the response format and behavior on verification failure, but the simple signature makes this moderately 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking 'current token' to capability_token and 'same principal/run' to run_id, but it does not specify token formats, where to obtain them, or expiration expectations. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, making this minimally adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Issue') and names the resource ('short-lived zero-spend capability token'), scoped to the same principal/run. This clearly distinguishes it from token registration or discovery siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 'after verifying the current token' implies the tool is used when an existing token needs renewal for the same run/principal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like register_capability or find_capability.
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.