Rank funded work by human blockers, supplier availability, known-vs-unknown price, cost confidence, and risk-adjusted profit.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the ranking logic and criteria, but it does not disclose output format, sorting behavior, or what 'funded work' precisely includes. This is acceptable but not rich given the annotations cover the read-only nature.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The primary action and distinguishing ranking criteria are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves important gaps: what the ranked result looks like, how the limit parameter affects results, and what auto_executable_only actually filters. The description gives the ranking dimensions but not enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not explicitly explain 'limit' or 'auto_executable_only', though 'human blockers' in the description provides a weak clue that auto_executable_only may filter out blocked opportunities. This is minimal compensation at best.
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 ('Rank') and identifies a concrete resource ('funded work') plus the exact ranking dimensions (human blockers, supplier availability, price known-vs-unknown, cost confidence, risk-adjusted profit). It clearly communicates what the tool computes, though it does not specify the output shape or differentiate itself from closely named siblings like rank_real_profit_opportunities and rank_profitable_opportunities.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rank_profitable_opportunities, rank_real_profit_opportunities, or estimate_profitability. The ranking criteria imply a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts are stated, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
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.