route_economySearch AgentLot plus indexing-enabled external sources. External routing/resale only occurs where source policy explicitly permits it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| budget_cents | No | ||
| listing_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does this by clarifying that external routing/resale only happens when source policy explicitly permits it. This is meaningful added context and does not contradict 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 two focused sentences with no wasted words: the core search action is front-loaded, and the policy caveat follows immediately. 'Indexing-enabled' is a bit of jargon, but the structure is efficient and scannable.
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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and many overlapping sibling tools, this description is under-specified. It does not describe return-value expectations, whether external results are flagged, or how this tool relates to other search/route siblings. An agent could call it but would not know what to expect back or when it is the right route.
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 missing parameter meaning. It only weakly implies that 'goal' is a search query and does not explain limit, category, currency, budget_cents, or listing_type. The optional filters are left entirely to inference from their names.
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?
Description provides a concrete verb ('Search') and a clear resource scope ('AgentLot plus indexing-enabled external sources'), which distinguishes the tool's basic purpose from pure listing or earn tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it from a top score.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tools such as route_global_market or search_external_catalog are referenced. The external-policy caveat is a constraint, not a usage rule, leaving agents to infer when this tool should be preferred.
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.