Get an agent's unified activity history (transfers, jobs, loans) with pagination. No api_key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions pagination but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens with invalid agent_id.
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, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, efficient and clear.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, description is minimal. Does not explain return values, error handling, or scope of 'unified activity', leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'with pagination' which aligns with limit/offset parameters, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already offers.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves unified activity history (transfers, jobs, loans) with pagination for an agent. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like transfer_cc or get_balance.
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?
Only mentions 'No api_key required' which is a permission note, but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance or get_cc_history.
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.