Full details of one TaskMarket task by ID: reward, mode, deadline, acceptance criteria, demand. Pay-per-call: $0.001 USDC per call on Base via x402 v2 exact scheme (EIP-3009, USDC). Each tools/call requires a valid settled payment; malformed arguments are never charged..
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | 32-byte hex task id (0x…) | |
| payment | No | base64 X-PAYMENT value; omit to receive payment terms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses pay-per-call cost ($0.001 USDC), the payment scheme (x402 v2, EIP-3009, USDC), the requirement for a valid settled payment, and that malformed arguments are never charged. This is significant behavioral context beyond a generic retrieve tool, though it does not cover error behavior for missing or invalid task IDs.
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 sentences: first states the function, second covers payment details. It is front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The minor double period at the end is negligible; overall it is concise and structured well.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description lists the expected fields (reward, mode, deadline, acceptance criteria, demand) which gives a clear idea of the return. It also covers payment requirements. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a single-task retrieval this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 100%: taskId is described as a 32-byte hex id, and payment as a base64 X-PAYMENT value with instructions to omit for payment terms. The description adds cost and payment context but does not further elaborate on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate meaning.
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 and resource: 'Full details of one TaskMarket task by ID'. It enumerates the fields returned (reward, mode, deadline, acceptance criteria, demand), making the tool's purpose distinct from its siblings (list, submissions). The purpose is unambiguous and informative.
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 usage by stating it retrieves a single task by ID, which differentiates it from list and submissions tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no exclusion or competitor guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
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 resource: single task details, a list of tasks, and submissions for a specific task. There is no overlap in their purposes, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
The 'tm_' prefix is consistent, and both 'tm_get_task' and 'tm_list_tasks' follow a verb_noun pattern. 'tm_task_submissions' deviates slightly by omitting the verb, but it is still readable and unambiguous.
With only three tools, the surface is well-scoped for a read-only data provider focused on TaskMarket tasks. Each tool fills a necessary role without bloat or redundancy.
For a data server, the coverage is complete: you can list tasks, fetch full details of a single task, and retrieve submissions per task. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.