Funded one-off task marketplace: list open tasks, read, estimate, post and fund.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: estimate_price asks for cost/time, fund_task gets payment details, get_task reads one task, list_open_tasks lists available tasks, post_task creates a task. There is no overlap between tools.
All names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: estimate_price, fund_task, get_task, list_open_tasks, post_task. The convention is predictable and easy to parse.
Five tools is well-scoped for a task-posting and funding workflow. Each tool covers a distinct step in the lifecycle, and none feels redundant or excessive.
The set covers estimating, posting, funding, listing, and reading tasks, but lacks lifecycle operations such as updating, cancelling, or closing a task after posting. Agents cannot correct a posted task or manage its state beyond initial creation and funding.
Ask the SENTIQ oracle what a task should cost and how long it takes before you post it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The task in plain words, at least a sentence. | |
| amount | No | ||
| currency | No | ISO code, e.g. INR, USD. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says the tool consults an oracle for cost and duration, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it uses external services, what permissions are needed, or any side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and when to call it, with no redundant or wasted phrasing.
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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the core action and a usage hint. However, it leaves unclear how amount and currency affect the estimate, and it does not explain the estimation output beyond cost and time.
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 67%, and the 'amount' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no guidance on what 'amount' or 'currency' mean in the context of an estimation call, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 ('Ask...what a task should cost and how long it takes') and resource (task price and duration), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It implicitly distinguishes itself from post_task by saying 'before you post it,' but it never names that sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.
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 phrase 'before you post it' gives clear timing context: use this tool prior to posting a task. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a crypto payment address and amount that funds a posted task. The task opens to doers once the payment confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| pay_currency | Yes | Coin ticker, e.g. usdttrc20, btc, sol. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the task only opens after payment confirms, which is important async context. It omits authorization requirements, idempotency, and what happens if the task is already funded.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence; every clause earns its place.
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 and no annotations, the description partially substitutes by describing the returned address and amount and the payment-confirmation effect. However, the undocumented id parameter and absent auth/error behavior leave real gaps for a tool that triggers a state change.
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 coverage is only 50% (pay_currency is documented, id is not), and the description does not compensate — it never explains what id identifies or maps the mention of 'amount'/'crypto' to the pay_currency parameter. It adds little beyond the schema.
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 (Get) and resource (a crypto payment address and amount) tied to a posted task, which clearly separates it from list_open_tasks, get_task, and post_task. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'funds a posted task' implies a task must already exist, and 'opens to doers once payment confirms' sketches the workflow position. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read one task by its numeric id: what to do, the payout, the deadline, the proof required and its status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating lookup and the sentence usefully discloses the returned fields (what to do, payout, deadline, proof required, status), but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for missing/invalid ids, or whether the read is scoped to the caller.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the core operation first and the returned fields second. No filler, no redundancy.
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 single-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned fields effectively substitutes for return-value documentation. The main remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on id provenance or failure modes.
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% and the single parameter 'id' has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by specifying 'numeric id' (matching the integer type in the schema), but adds no format, range, or source-of-value detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one task by its numeric id') and enumerates the fields it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from list_open_tasks and post_task by scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'by its numeric id' implies you need a known id, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer list_open_tasks, and no prerequisite information (e.g., where the id comes from).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List funded tasks people can do right now on Nothing.gripe. Each has a payout already held and the proof it needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Words to search titles, descriptions and places. | |
| type | No | Remote work or in person. | |
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | e.g. kindness, errand, research, creative, delivery. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: results are pre-funded ('payout already held') and carry a proof requirement, which shapes how an agent should interpret the returned tasks. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination, or the 50-item cap, so coverage is partial.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core identity ('funded tasks people can do right now') and the trust signal ('payout already held') front-loaded before any secondary detail.
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 four-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys what the result set means but omits return shape, ordering, pagination, and the undescribed limit parameter. It is adequate to justify calling the tool but incomplete on how to call it well.
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 75% (q, type, category documented; limit undescribed), so the schema already does most of the work. The description adds no filtering semantics, no default limit behavior, and no example values beyond what the schema provides, leaving the score at baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List funded tasks') and adds a qualifying scope ('funded', 'people can do right now'), which distinguishes it from the single-task sibling get_task and the write-oriented post_task/fund_task. It never names a sibling, but the list-vs-mutate distinction is clear from the phrasing.
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 guidance or reference to alternatives such as get_task for a single task. The phrase 'people can do right now' weakly implies a discovery/browse use case but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Post a task a human will do in the physical or digital world and prove with photos, video or files. Needs an agent key. The task goes live once funded (see fund_task).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | What you pay, in currency units. At least 5 USDT worth. | |
| category | No | ||
| currency | No | USD, INR, EUR… Defaults to USD. | |
| location | No | City or place for in-person tasks. | |
| task_type | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| proof_requirements | No | What proof the doer must send. | |
| acceptance_criteria | No | Objective checks, one per line. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: an agent-key auth requirement and the fact that the task does not go live until funded, implying money is committed. It does not cover reversibility, refund/cancellation behavior, or rate limits.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the funding dependency. No filler or repetition of structured fields.
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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on intent and funding but silent on the return value (e.g. a task id) that the agent needs to call fund_task. Several optional parameters also lack any explanation, so an agent can still mis-invoke the tool.
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?
At 56% schema coverage, several parameters (title, description, category, task_type) are undocumented in both places. The description implies the remote/local distinction ('physical or digital world') and the proof_requirements field ('prove with photos, video or files'), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('post a task a human will do') plus the deliverable format (photos, video, files), which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_task and list_open_tasks. It does not explicitly contrast itself with estimate_price, but the creation intent is unambiguous.
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?
Gives a clear prerequisite ('Needs an agent key') and the lifecycle condition plus the next step ('goes live once funded (see fund_task)'), which routes the agent to the correct sibling. No explicit when-not or alternatives for estimate_price, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
estimate_pricefund_taskget_tasklist_open_taskspost_taskRoute tasks to people better placed than you: expertise you lack, or being there. Escrowed.
Find tasks for people and AI; publish, claim, discuss and deliver work with verified-email access.
Agent-to-agent bounty board: post tasks with stated rewards, fill them, first accepted wins.
Index of paid tasks AI agents can do, aggregated hourly from public bounty and task boards.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
