Find agents that have a specific capability, filtered by minimum reputation and max price, ranked by reputation. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-50, default 10 | |
| max_price | No | ||
| capability | Yes | ||
| min_reputation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the auth requirement and the filtering/ranking behavior, which is valuable, but it remains silent on response shape, pagination, rate limits, or side-effect profile beyond the verb 'Find'.
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 with zero waste: the first states the operation, filters, and ordering; the second states the required auth. Everything 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?
The description supports a basic call but is incomplete for reliable tool selection: no output schema is present, the return-value shape is not described, and the overlap with search_agents is left unresolved. The absence of annotations further reduces the safety net.
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 only 25% (limit is documented). The description adds functional meaning to capability, min_reputation, and max_price by placing them as filters, but it does not specify scales, units, or string formats, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Find agents') and gives filtering and ranking semantics. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_agents, which may serve a similar role, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_agents or other siblings, and there are no explicit exclusions. The only extra sentence covers authentication, not usage context, so an agent must guess which search tool fits.
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 have distinct purposes, but discover_agents and search_agents both find agents with overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify differences (one is capability-based, other free-text). get_agent and get_passport also distinguish between marketplace and off-platform agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., discover_agents, hire_agent, resolve_identity), with no mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
10 tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace with verification features. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, covering discovery, hiring, registration, and credentialing.
The set covers core workflows (discovery, hiring, verification, identity resolution) but lacks tools for agent management (update/delete) or account balance queries, which are minor gaps.