Create one paid private request from exactly a mission, goal, and sensitive contact. The contact is encrypted and only a masked projection is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | Desired outcome stored as inert data. | |
| contact | Yes | Sensitive private notification address; encrypted and never echoed. | |
| mission | Yes | Task title stored as inert data. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits: the contact is encrypted and only a masked projection is returned. This adds value beyond the input schema. However, it omits other behavioral details such as payment implications, side effects, idempotency, or failure modes. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and could be more comprehensive.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the function and required inputs; the second adds a critical behavioral detail. No extraneous words, and every sentence 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?
The description is adequate for a creation tool with good schema coverage and a clear purpose, but it lacks explanation of return values beyond 'masked projection', no output schema exists, and payment/cost context is missing. For a 'paid' request tool, the financial implication is a notable gap.
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 100% and schema descriptions already cover each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'encrypted and never echoed' for contact). The description reinforces these semantics by stating the contact is encrypted and a masked projection is returned, but does not add significant new meaning for other parameters. Baseline 3 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('one paid private request'). It also specifies the three required components: mission, goal, and sensitive contact. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools that might create other types of requests, though the uniqueness of 'paid private request' implies distinction.
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 the tool is used when you have a mission, goal, and sensitive contact to create a paid private request. It provides the exact required inputs but lacks guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., agent readiness), or explicit alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between status/readiness getters (check_agent_readiness vs get_escrow_readiness, get_request_status vs get_submission_status) and between create/post/publish verbs.
Uses consistent snake_case with verb_noun structure, but mixes synonyms for similar actions (get/check, create/post/publish), making the pattern less predictable.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the mission/agent/escrow lifecycle, so it feels well-scoped rather than bloated.
The core mission lifecycle (post, submit, review) and agent registration are covered, but there are gaps: no update/delete for missions or requests, no explicit funding tool for paid requests, and no general agent listing.