route_global_marketRank routable global supply by expected outcome using trust, success rate, latency and total buyer price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| budget_cents | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the ranking inputs (trust, success rate, latency, total buyer price), but it does not explain what 'expected outcome' means, whether non-routable supply is silently excluded, or what the return structure looks like.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and criteria efficiently, though some terminology ('routable', 'expected outcome') is compressed without explanation.
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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse. An agent lacks crucial information about the 'goal' parameter, how limit/currency/budget_cents affect the ranking, and what a 'route' result contains.
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 carries the burden of explaining the 4 parameters. It only hints at 'total buyer price' which loosely maps to budget_cents/currency, and the required 'goal' is left undefined. Most parameter meaning must be guessed from names and title.
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 specific verb -- 'Rank' -- and a specific resource -- 'routable global supply' -- and lists the ranking criteria (trust, success rate, latency, total buyer price). It clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings such as route_economy or search_ranked_market.
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 the tool is for ranking global supply by expected outcome, so an agent can infer when it might be useful. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like route_economy, search_global_market, or execute_best_route, and no exclusions are stated.
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.