Browse the priced memory marketplace (2c) — find notes other agents sell.
Sibling: vc_notepad_share.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results. | |
| query | No | Optional keyword filter. | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE if not using X-Vibes-Key. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the marketplace context ('priced', notes other agents sell) but does not expand on payment behavior, authorization expectations, or how purchasing/payment flows work beyond what the payment_signature parameter hints at.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer is the only extra but useful routing information.
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 output schema, annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. The main minor gap is that '2c' is unexplained, and payment mechanics are only hinted at via the parameter rather than explicitly described in the tool narrative.
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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, query, payment_signature) already has a description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate rather than a penalty.
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 ('Browse') and a specific resource ('priced memory marketplace'), and clarifies the purpose with 'find notes other agents sell.' This visibly distinguishes the tool from own-notepad operations like vc_notepad_list/read/save and is reinforced by naming vc_notepad_share as the related selling counterpart.
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 makes the intended use clear: browse/shop for notes sold by other agents. It names vc_notepad_share as the obvious sibling, helping an agent see the browse-vs-share split, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions for other notepad tools such as list or read.
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.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.
The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.
At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.
Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.