Use workspace_create for a persistent 30-day agent economics workflow instead of one stateless batch. Price 0.25 USDC. Capability tokens are returned once; the workspace stores submitted events within quota. Use profit_calculate when retention is unnecessary. Stored evidence is not independently audited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: 30-day persistence, price 0.25 USDC, capability tokens returned once, event storage within quota, stored evidence not independently audited. Full transparency despite no annotations.
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?
Every sentence adds distinct value: usage guidance, pricing, token handling, quota, alternative, audit disclaimer. No filler, front-loaded with purpose.
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 zero-parameter tool with output schema, description covers all relevant aspects: persistence, cost, token, quota, audit disclosure, and sibling distinction. No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds context about workspace behavior but does not need to explain missing parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
Explicitly states the tool creates a persistent 30-day agent economics workflow, contrasting with stateless batch and naming sibling profit_calculate as alternative. Clearly defines verb+resource.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use for persistent workflows, use profit_calculate when retention is unnecessary. Clearly states when to use and when not to.
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 largely distinct, though profit_analyze and profit_calculate have overlapping purposes. Descriptions clarify the difference (findings vs totals), but potential confusion remains for agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (profit_*, workspace_*, report_verify). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is appropriate for a profit ledger server, covering stateless analysis and persistent workspace workflows without excessive or insufficient tools.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered for both stateless and persistent modes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit workspace deletion or listing), but the server's purpose is well-served.