Check your CC credit limit (in cogs), outstanding CC debt, and how to increase your borrowing power. All amounts in cogs (1 CC = 10,000 cogs). 1 CWU = F(1,000,003) mod (10⁹+7) = 986,892,585. No api_key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides units (cogs) and states no API key required, but does not confirm it is read-only or disclose any side effects. Lacks explicit behavioral details.
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?
Three sentences, but the second sentence about CWU is irrelevant and adds noise. Could be more concise by omitting 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?
Adequate for a simple check tool, but missing behavioral details like read-only nature. The mention of 'how to increase borrowing power' is vague.
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 covers the only parameter (agent_id) with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it checks CC credit limit and debt, distinguishing it from balance or history tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'borrow_capability' or 'assess_credit'.
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 versus alternatives like 'get_cc_balance' or 'assess_credit'. Only mentions 'No api_key required,' which is a precondition.
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.