capabilities_listList supplier-owned callable contracts with supplier-set per-call price, SLA, verification history, and uptime shown as separate fields. Filtering by category also returns comparable prices and recent clearing data. The buyer must choose a capability id; Licium never auto-routes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | Optional machine-readable category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: fields are separate, category filtering adds extra data, and the system never auto-routes. Yet it omits other relevant behaviors such as pagination, sorting, or error conditions, leaving the agent with an incomplete behavioral model.
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 three sentences, each adding value: the core listing behavior, the category enhancement, and an important usage warning. There is no repetition or filler, making it concise and well-structured.
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 covers the tool's main purpose, key output fields, category-filter behavior, and a critical usage instruction. It does not describe the limit parameter's meaning or pagination, but given the simplicity of a two-optional-param list tool, the description is reasonably complete.
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 describes only category; limit has no description. The tool description explains the effect of the category parameter (returns comparable prices and recent clearing data) but says nothing about limit, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List supplier-owned callable contracts.' It also enumerates the fields returned (per-call price, SLA, verification history, uptime), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like capability_get or capability_call.
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 context by noting that filtering by category enriches results with comparable prices and recent clearing data, and it warns that 'the buyer must choose a capability id; Licium never auto-routes.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as capability_get, nor does it mention any exclusions.
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.
Several tools share the same domain (bounties, capabilities, sources) and a few pairs could be confused, such as bounty_subscribe vs work_alert_subscribe or needs_intake vs request_source. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb-first (get_rows, list_sources), others noun-first (bounties_list, bounty_get), and some are noun phrases (bounty_counter, needs_intake). This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 26 tools, the set crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad domain justifies some size, several niche tools (e.g., bounty_self_gate, capability_price_notices) could be consolidated or are overly granular.
Core workflows exist for bounties, capabilities, and sources, but there are notable gaps: no explicit accept/payout tool for bounties, no delete/disable for capabilities, and no way to list individual submissions. Some lifecycle operations are missing.