Search this hub's capability catalogue by intent. Optional category (e.g. security) and budget filter. Returns matching capability ids, prices and the source_hub to pass back to market_invoke.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 10, max 50). | |
| budget | No | Optional cap on price per call, in USD. | |
| intent | Yes | What you want done, in plain language. | |
| category | No | Optional category filter, e.g. 'security'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool only searches and returns matching capability ids, prices, and source_hub, and the phrase 'to pass back to market_invoke' clarifies that it does not itself perform the invocation. It doesn't describe ordering or empty-result behavior, but the core search behavior is transparent.
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. The first sentence states action, second covers optional filters and outputs; every clause earns its place.
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 straightforward search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what filters are available, what results will contain, and how to use the result with the sibling tool.
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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds modest context by naming category and budget as optional filters and noting the return fields, but it doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search this hub's capability catalogue by intent.' It clearly identifies what is searched and the key input, and the return of source_hub for market_invoke distinguishes it from the sibling market_invoke tool.
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?
It implies this tool is the discovery step before market_invoke by returning a source_hub to pass along. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose between searching and invoking.
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.
The two tools have perfectly distinct roles: market_search finds capabilities, market_invoke executes them. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the market_ prefix: market_search and market_invoke. Naming is predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the set feels thin for a marketplace. While search and invoke are core, additional operations like listing categories or managing payment channels could be expected.
The search-then-invoke workflow covers the primary consumer lifecycle well. However, there is no explicit way to view detailed capability information beyond search results, and payment setup is handled externally, leaving minor gaps.