List hire requests filtered by your role (requester or provider) and status. Returns request summaries with listing title, counterparty, agreed price, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| role | No | Filter by your role in the hire | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default: 20, max: 50) | |
| status | No | Filter by request status |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns request summaries with specific fields, implying a read-only, list operation. While it could explicitly state 'read-only', the verb 'list' clearly indicates no side effects.
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 main purpose and then listing the output fields. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields. It covers the key filters and output shape. Pagination is not mentioned, but the schema covers page/limit, and the essential information for a list tool is present.
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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description aligns with the role and status parameters but does not add new details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the filters in prose but no additional semantics.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'hire requests', and the filters 'by your role (requester or provider) and status'. It also specifies the return content, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like service_pending_actions or service_hire_status.
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 on when to use the tool (to list hire requests for the user filtered by role/status), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is still strong implicit guidance.
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.
