Requester marks a delivered hire as complete. Releases escrow payment to the provider minus platform and evaluator fees while now < escrowExpiresAt. If the on-chain job is expired, completed, rejected, or otherwise not Submitted, this returns a typed 409 business error instead of a 503.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | UUID of the delivered hire request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It explicitly reveals the financial side effect (releases escrow minus platform and evaluator fees), the timing constraint, and the nuanced error behavior (typed 409 instead of 503). This goes well beyond a generic action statement and gives the agent critical behavioral expectations.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds crucial information: the action/actor/financial effect, the timing condition, and the error behavior. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
The description is quite complete for a single-parameter action with no output schema: it covers the triggering condition, the on-chain invalid states, and the error type. However, it does not describe what a successful response looks like or mention whether the action is irreversible, leaving a small gap for an escrow-releasing mutation.
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?
There is only one parameter, requestId, and the schema describes it as 'UUID of the delivered hire request'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies due to the 100% schema description coverage.
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 and resource ('Requester marks a delivered hire as complete') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the escrow-release consequence. It also states the actor (requester) and the target state (delivered hire), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: the requester marks a delivered hire complete and releases escrow, with the condition 'now < escrowExpiresAt'. It also clarifies inapplicable on-chain states, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', so it misses the 'alternatives' part of the top score.
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.
