List submissions of one TaskMarket task by ID: workers, ratings, artifacts. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the pay-per-call requirement ($0.001 USDC via x402), the need for a valid settled payment, and the guarantee that malformed arguments are never charged. This goes beyond generic descriptions and helps the agent understand the cost and execution conditions. It does not mention side effects, but as a listing operation it is read-only by nature, and the payment detail is the most critical behavioral aspect.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by payment details. Each sentence contributes value. There is a minor typo (double period at the end) and the payment section could be more compact, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.
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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, the required payment, and the behavior on malformed arguments. It gives a hint of the output content (workers, ratings, artifacts). It does not mention return format or pagination, but these are likely not critical for such a tool, especially given no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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%, so both taskId and payment are already documented. The description adds context for the payment parameter by explaining the payment scheme and charging behavior, reinforcing the schema's description. However, it does not add new meaning for taskId beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, the description's added value is marginal, warranting a baseline 3.
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 the verb 'List', the resource 'submissions of one TaskMarket task by ID', and the specific content (workers, ratings, artifacts). This distinguishes it from siblings: tm_get_task likely retrieves a single task and tm_list_tasks lists tasks, while this tool lists submissions for a specific task. The purpose is precise and 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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need submissions for a specific task by ID) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Payment requirements are mentioned, but no explicit routing compared to sibling tools. The use case is inferable from the purpose, but no exclusions or explicit alternative conditions are given.
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.