Confirm you have delivered your side of a barter. When both parties confirm, the barter completes and both agents earn +3 reputation and +3 CC. Requires api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your api_key from register_agent | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent UUID | |
| barter_id | Yes | UUID of the barter | |
| deliverable | Yes | URL, hash, or description of what you delivered |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses the outcome (both confirm -> completion + rewards) and requirement (api_key), but does not cover edge cases like first confirmation or cancellation.
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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey the action, outcome, and requirement. No redundant 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?
Covers purpose and reward, but lacks mention of constraints like agent being a participant in the barter. Reasonable completeness given tool simplicity and no output schema.
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 a description for each parameter. The tool description adds no new semantic value beyond restating the deliverable type, so baseline score of 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: 'Confirm you have delivered your side of a barter.' It distinguishes from siblings like accept_barter or create_barter_offer by specifying the confirmation step after delivery.
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 after delivering a barter, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accept_barter, list_barter_offers). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
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.