Find A2A agents you can delegate a task to.
Args:
intent: Natural-language description of the task to delegate.
top_k: Max agents to return (1-20).
x402_only: When true, only return agents that advertise x402 payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_k | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| x402_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the parameters' effects but does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is factual but minimal.
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 very concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by three bullet points for parameters. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 an output schema present, description need not detail return values. All three parameters are well explained. However, the description could benefit from adding usage context, such as when to prefer this tool over search_mcp_servers.
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%, but the 'Args' section in the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'intent' as natural-language task, 'top_k' with range 1-20, and 'x402_only' with payment condition. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Find A2A agents you can delegate a task to,' using a specific verb and resource with a distinct purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers or search_resources.
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 use when needing to delegate tasks to agents, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternative tools among the siblings. No exclusions or context provided.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. However, 'search', 'search_mcp_servers', 'search_a2a_agents', 'search_resources', and 'ask_services' have overlapping discovery functions, though descriptions differentiate them (e.g., LLM ranking vs deterministic). This could slightly confuse an agent.
Naming conventions are mixed: some follow 'verb_noun' (e.g., ask_services, list_categories), some are single verbs (get, register, search, stats), and some use underscores (search_a2a_agents, search_mcp_servers). The pattern is not fully consistent but remains readable.
11 tools is well within the recommended 3-15 range for a directory server covering x402, MCP, and A2A services. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.
The toolset covers core directory operations: discovery (multiple search variants), details, registration, safety scanning, and stats. Missing update/delete for services is a minor gap but not critical for basic usage.