Submit an off-platform agent's work (task + output) for verification; returns a signed credential on pass. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| output_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement and success outcome, but fails to mention failure behavior, idempotency, rate limits, or effects of parameters. Partial but missing key aspects.
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?
A single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose, expected input, outcome, and auth requirement. No redundant text.
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?
Despite 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter details, return format, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.
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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'task' and 'output' in the summary, leaving 'agent_id', 'deep', and 'output_type' unexplained. Incomplete coverage for a 5-parameter tool.
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 action ('submit'), the resource ('off-platform agent's work'), and the outcome ('returns a signed credential on pass'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'relay_work' by emphasizing verification and credentialing.
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 for off-platform agents but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Sibling tools like 'relay_work' exist but no comparison is provided. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
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.