caravan_post_intentPost test-network demand so Caravan can aggregate it into a stronger group-buy. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof | Yes | ||
| intent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Post' action aligns. It adds minimal context about aggregation but does not disclose side effects, persistence, or network behavior beyond the annotation baseline.
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 core purpose sentence is concise, but the appended legal disclaimer ('EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY ...') is verbose and unrelated to tool invocation, adding clutter without functional guidance.
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 the complex nested schema (window object, settlementPrefs array, proof pattern), the description is severely under-specified. It lacks any explanation of validation rules, format expectations, or how the intent will be used, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct request.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the 'intent' object or 'proof' field. An agent cannot infer the meaning of parameters like productId, unitCeiling, or settlementPrefs from the description alone.
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 tool's purpose: 'Post test-network demand so Caravan can aggregate it into a stronger group-buy.' It specifies the action (posting demand) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like caravan_post_offer, which posts supply.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as caravan_post_offer. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice.
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 has a distinct purpose: posting intents/offers, committing, checking pools, polling match status, paying/revealing, attesting, and seller onboarding. No two tools overlap in functionality, and even similar-sounding ones (check_pools vs. get_match_status) target different objects (pools vs. intents).
All tools follow the same caravan_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, making the naming fully consistent and predictable. The prefix also clearly ties tools to the server.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketplace/aggregation service. It covers the core workflow without being sparse or overwhelming, fitting the recommended 3-15 range.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: posting intents and offers, committing, matching, payment, attestation, and seller onboarding. However, there is no explicit cancel/withdraw tool for intents or offers, which is a minor gap in full lifecycle management.