Rank funded opportunities by eligibility, verified-cost confidence and risk-adjusted profit. Unknown price is never treated as free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| auto_executable_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Unknown price is never treated as free' is a non-obvious rule about how the tool handles missing price data, which is valuable for an agent to know before calling. The ranking criteria also give insight into how the tool behaves. It does not cover every possible behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations.
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 remarkably succinct: two short sentences that deliver a specific verb, resource, criteria, and an important edge-case rule. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.
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 atool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the parameters do, or any usage boundaries. It covers the ranking concept but leaves critical operational details (like `auto_execmable_only` and pagination via `limit`) unmentioned, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
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 input schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (`limit` and `auto_executable_only`), and the description does not mention either parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter semantics, but it does not. The agent is left to infer what 'auto_executable_only' means and how 'limit' behaves, which is inadequate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Rank funded opportunities' with specific ranking criteria (eligibility, verified-cost confidence, risk-adjusted profit). This gives a concrete sense of the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools rank_profitable_opportunities and rank_real_profit_opportunities_v2, which are close in name and likely function.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when you want funded opportunities ranked by profit and risk), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the similar siblings rank_profitable_opportunities or rank_real_profit_opportunities_v2. There are no exclusions or preconditions. With multiple closely related tools available, this lack of routing guidance is a significant gap.
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.