Get the current state of a hire request, including the latest messages, delivery summary, escrow status, derived reviewEndsAt and escrowExpiresAt timestamps, and any caller-visible push notification configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | UUID of the hire request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation by using 'Get' and enumerating the returned data, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe/read-only, nor does it describe potential errors (e.g., invalid requestId, missing resource) or any side effects. The content listing is useful but incomplete for full transparency.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current state of a hire request') and then efficiently enumerates the key data points included. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of what the response will contain: messages, delivery summary, escrow status, timestamps, and notification configuration. This equips the agent to understand the tool's output. It falls short of a 5 because it does not mention error behavior, nullability of fields, or whether messages are paginated, which could matter in edge cases.
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% (the only parameter requestId is described as 'UUID of the hire request'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the concept of a hire request. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current state of a hire request'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by listing the included data (messages, delivery summary, escrow status, timestamps, notification config), which differentiates it from action-oriented tools like accept/decline/complete/deliver and listing tools like list_requests.
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 purpose is clear, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking a single hire request's status, but does not mention when to prefer it over list_requests or how it relates to other service tools. The 'hire request' context is evident, yet no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
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.
