get_moneyReturn authenticated agent marketplace earnings/spend, pending earnings, mandate and ledger metadata. AgentLot does not claim an internal withdrawable cash balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional AgentLot al_live_ key when the MCP client cannot set Authorization headers dynamically. Prefer connector-level Bearer auth for persistent integrations. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool reports ledger metadata and explicitly does not claim a withdrawable cash balance, while noting the authenticated scope. It does not disclose return format or error behavior, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and result categories, and the second adds a relevant caveat. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 one-parameter read-only snapshot with annotations, the description covers what is returned (earnings/spend, pending earnings, mandate, ledger metadata) and a key limitation (no cash balance). There is no output schema, but the listed return categories set adequate expectations. It could specify response shape, but the low complexity does not demand more.
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?
The single api_key parameter is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'authenticated' in the body, reinforcing the auth context, but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Return') and a defined resource: authenticated agent marketplace earnings/spend, pending earnings, mandate, and ledger metadata. The second sentence adds a distinguishing caveat about no withdrawable cash balance, which helps differentiate it from balance-focused tools like get_balance. However, it does not explicitly separate it from overlapping money siblings like get_earnings or discover_earnings, so it falls short of a full 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The caveat that AgentLot does not claim an internal withdrawable cash balance implies the tool is not for retrieving an accessible balance, but it does not name a sibling or specify conditions. The usage context is mostly implied by the 'economic snapshot' framing.
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.