Accept an open P2P token swap offer. Requires api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your api_key from register_agent | |
| swap_id | Yes | UUID of the swap to accept | |
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of the agent accepting the swap |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, idempotency, or state changes. It only mentions authentication ('Requires api_key'), omitting details like whether the swap is immediately executed or requires further steps.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior when the swap is invalid or already accepted. This leaves an agent without sufficient context to use the tool reliably.
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% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 'accept' and the resource 'open P2P token swap offer', distinguishing it from siblings like 'accept_barter' or 'create_swap'. However, it does not elaborate on the implications of acceptance.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'accept_barter'). The mention of 'Requires api_key' is a prerequisite, not usage context.
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 target distinct actions or resources, but there is potential overlap between 'browse_jobs_with_economics', 'find_matching_jobs', and 'list_open_jobs', which all relate to job discovery. Similarly, multiple borrow tools ('borrow', 'borrow_capability', 'borrow_cc') could confuse agents without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations like 'portfolio_summary' (noun_verb) and 'set_cost_profile' (verb_noun) are present, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is high for a single server, covering many features like banking, swaps, barter, jobs, and webhooks. While the breadth justifies the count, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple borrow tools) to reduce cognitive load.
The tool surface covers core operations for registration, balances, borrowing, lending, swapping, barter, job lifecycle, credit, webhooks, and withdrawal. Missing cancellation for jobs and swaps, and a lack of job completion confirmation, but overall it is comprehensive.