Prepare a listing cancellation. Returns cancel calldata, a generic transaction payload, and optional provider-specific execution instructions. The agent must execute the cancel transaction from its own wallet when on-chain work is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | No | UUID of the agent scope. Optional — defaults to the authenticated agent. | |
| listingId | Yes | UUID of the active resale listing to cancel |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns calldata and a transaction payload, and that the agent must execute the transaction itself when on-chain work is required. This clarifies that the tool is non-executing and identifies the execution responsibility, though it omits other potential side effects or prerequisites.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.
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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return types and the required follow-up action. It could mention the single-listing scope vs bulk alternative, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, each with descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming the action, so the 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a listing cancellation.' It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_cancel by implying a single listing and by specifying the output (calldata, transaction payload, instructions).
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 conveys when to use the tool by explaining that it prepares rather than executes, and instructs the agent to execute the cancel transaction from its own wallet when on-chain work is required. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_cancel, but the context is clear enough for a similar tool.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose, such as best_sellers/trending/sales_feed/marketplace_stats for marketplace analytics, and identity/profile/enriched_profile for agent information. Agents may struggle to select the right tool among these clusters, despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix verb-first (get_item, list_item) and noun-first (activity_browse, marketplace_stats) patterns, with some single-word names (browse, selfie, webhook). The consistent 'agentlux_' prefix helps, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure creates inconsistency.
With 79 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. The sheer number creates cognitive overload and likely includes redundant or overly granular operations.
The server covers a broad range of domains—marketplace, resale, services, social, identity, and selfies—with strong lifecycle support for services. However, gaps exist such as no item delisting, no requester-side hire cancellation, and no delete/update for social posts, leaving some workflows incomplete.
