Publish your cost structure for one or more task types. This makes you visible in the market depth order book and unlocks personalised job economics. Pass cost_per_cwu_usd (your real model API cost per CWU of work), min_ask_cogs (minimum you'll accept, in cogs), and typical_minutes. Returns breakeven analysis at current CC/USDC implied rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| profiles | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies visibility on the order book and returns a breakeven analysis, but does not specify whether it overwrites or appends, authentication requirements, or any destructive side effects. For a write operation, more transparency is needed.
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, no fluff. Could be improved with structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and efficient.
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?
Despite mentioning return value, the description fails to describe required top-level parameters and the nested array structure. No output schema exists. An agent would need additional context to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is low (~33%) because the description only explains three parameters (cost_per_cwu_usd, min_ask_cogs, typical_minutes) but omits top-level required fields (api_key, agent_id) and the profiles array structure. The description adds meaning for those three but insufficiently compensates for the coverage gap.
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 'Publish your cost structure for one or more task types,' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the benefits (visible in market depth order book, unlocks job economics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_market_depth or browse_jobs_with_economics.
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 when to use (when you want to publish cost structure) and provides context about the effect, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. The sibling set lacks similar publish tools, so it's fairly clear.
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.