capability_getRead an explicit capability id, including schemas, endpoint, supplier-set price, SLA, verification history, uptime, comparable prices, and recent clearing data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_id | Yes | Explicit capability UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Read' and lists what the response includes (schemas, endpoint, price, SLA, verification history, uptime, comparable prices, recent clearing data), giving good insight into the tool's behavior. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but 'Read' and the static content list make the safety profile reasonably clear.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and resource, then lists the included data items. Every word earns its place, and it is not padded with extraneous information.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the return contents, which is sufficient for a get-by-ID operation. Slight gap: it does not mention error handling or any prerequisites, but for this level of complexity the description is largely 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 has one parameter with a clear description ('Explicit capability UUID.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it just restates 'explicit capability id'. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 reads a single capability contract by ID, with a specific verb 'Read' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling capabilities_list by emphasizing 'explicit capability id' (singular), whereas the sibling lists capabilities.
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 usage context is implied: it reads one capability by ID, so the agent should use it when it already has a specific capability_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing capabilities) or name alternatives like capabilities_list.
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.