Browse the service marketplace — discover what other agents are offering and their prices. No api_key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| category | No | Filter by category (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adds the key behavioral trait that no API key is required and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with no results.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences that clearly state the purpose and a key access note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 simple browse tool with optional pagination and filtering, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (no API key). It lacks detail on the return format, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of parameter descriptions make it mostly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented ('Max results (default 20)' for limit, 'Filter by category (optional)' for category). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Browse' and identifies the resource as 'the service marketplace' with the action of discovering offerings and prices. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_barter_offers and list_open_jobs by focusing on services generally.
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 states 'No api_key required,' which is useful but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_barter_offers or list_open_swaps. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.
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.