List free-seat status plus requestable local runtimes such as Ollama, llama.cpp, LM Studio, OpenAI-compatible servers, and vLLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or resource constraints. It only hints at a read-only operation by listing status.
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 one concise sentence with front-loaded verb 'List', but includes vague phrasing like 'such as' and ends with 'etc.' which slightly reduces precision.
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 0 parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. It could mention what 'free-seat status' means, but overall it is complete.
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 are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description adds value by explaining the tool's output. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides sufficient context.
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 lists 'free-seat status plus requestable local runtimes' and provides specific examples (Ollama, llama.cpp, LM Studio, etc.), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like ddg_list_models and ddg_list_services.
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 implies usage (to see available local runtimes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, ranging from status checks to order management to payment processing. Despite the large number, descriptions make them easy to differentiate, with no obvious overlap.
All tools share the 'ddg_' prefix, but naming patterns vary: some use verb_noun (e.g., ddg_list_models) while others use noun_noun (e.g., ddg_agent_status). This mix reduces consistency, though readability remains acceptable.
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end but scales to cover diverse aspects of payable services (status, orders, payments, models, x402). Minor consolidation could be possible, but most tools earn their place.
The tool surface covers core workflows like order lifecycle, payment, and service discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., no cancellation or refund tools) exist but do not severely hinder typical agent interactions.
