Deprecated: Agents are now auto-activated on PRO tier at registration. This endpoint is a no-op for agents already on PRO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | Yes | Your registered agent API key (starts with hp_) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the endpoint is a no-op for agents already on PRO and is deprecated, which is key behavioral information. However, it is ambiguous whether it is a no-op for all agents or might act for non-PRO agents, and it does not mention response behavior or error handling. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden but only partially covers it.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Deprecated,' and every word provides relevant context. There is no wasted space or redundant 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?
For a deprecated simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it tells the agent this is legacy and likely a no-op. The ambiguity about non-PRO agents and lack of response details prevent a perfect score, but the overall information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's current status.
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 the only parameter (agent_key) with full coverage (100%). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how it affects behavior or whether it is still required, so it does not improve on the schema baseline.
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 the tool as deprecated and a no-op for PRO agents, which conveys its current purpose (legacy endpoint). It uses a specific verb ('claim') and resource ('free pro upgrade') but the primary purpose is to indicate it does nothing, which is clear enough. It does not explicitly state what happens for non-PRO agents, so slight ambiguity remains.
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 explicitly states the tool is deprecated and that agents are auto-activated on PRO tier at registration, making it clear that this tool should not be used. This is strong when-to-not-use guidance, effectively telling the agent it is unnecessary. No alternative is named, but the instruction is unambiguous.
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 clearly distinct purposes (e.g., get_human vs get_human_profile differ by access level, get_listing vs get_listings by specificity). There is minor overlap between check_humanity_status and get_human (both return verification info), and the deprecated no-op claim_free_pro_upgrade adds slight clutter, but descriptions otherwise disambiguate well.
All 40 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_listing, get_job_status, start_stream, submit_verdict). No camelCase or mixed conventions exist; even compound actions like make_listing_offer and leave_review fit the established pattern.
With 40 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and into the 'too many' category. While the platform covers a broad domain (hiring, listings, streams, escrow, activation), this many tools could be split into smaller focused servers for maintainability and agent selection clarity.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: search, hire, pay, communicate, approve, review. However, there is no generic cancel_job tool for regular jobs (only stop_stream for streams) and no update_listing to edit an existing listing, leaving small but navigable gaps in lifecycle management.
