Re-fetch and side-effect-gate a Taskmarket opportunity, then return the exact wallet message that must be signed externally. Does not use or request a private key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | No | ||
| opportunity_id | Yes | ||
| worker_address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it does not use or request a private key and that the returned message must be signed externally. This tells an agent the tool prepares an off-chain signature rather than executing a transaction.
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, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with no filler. The phrase 'side-effect-gate' is jargon and slightly obscure, but the description remains appropriately concise.
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 preparation tool with annotations covering safety, stating that it returns a signable wallet message without handling a private key provides a useful backbone. However, because there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the missing explanation of worker_address, execution_id, and what 'side-effect-gate' actually guarantees leaves an agent guessing.
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 never explains worker_address or execution_id and only loosely maps to opportunity_id via 'Taskmarket opportunity.' The wallet-message context hints at why worker_address is needed, but not enough to call with confidence.
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 resource (Taskmarket opportunity) and a concrete deliverable (the exact wallet message to sign externally), and clarifies it is a preparatory step, not the submission itself. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the external-signing detail makes the purpose distinguishable.
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 guidance states when to call this tool versus a sibling such as check_taskmarket_submission_gate or submit_delivery. The context implies use before signing, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.