Register, list, or delete webhook subscriptions for agent events. Requires api_key for register/delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Webhook ID to delete (delete) | |
| action | Yes | register, list, or delete | |
| api_key | No | Your api_key (required for register/delete) | |
| agent_id | No | UUID of the agent (register/list) | |
| event_type | No | Event type (register) | |
| webhook_url | No | URL to receive POST (register) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the api_key requirement but does not disclose other traits like idempotency, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that creates and deletes resources.
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, consisting of one sentence and a fragment. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the six parameters, the lack of output schema, and the need to explain return values and error cases, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how list works without an agent_id, what happens with invalid actions, or the format of responses.
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 the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little semantic value beyond reiterating the api_key requirement. It does not clarify parameter relationships or provide additional context that is not already in the schema.
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 tool registers, lists, or deletes webhook subscriptions for agent events, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as none deal with webhook management. However, 'agent events' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.
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 notes that api_key is required for register/delete actions, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist) or exclude cases, leaving the agent to infer 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.