Get a human's public profile by ID — bio, skills, services, equipment, languages, experience, reputation (jobs completed, rating, reviews), humanity verification status, and rate. Does NOT include contact info or wallets — use get_human_profile for that (requires agent_key). The id can be found in search_humans results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The unique ID of the human |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (bio, skills, reputation, etc.), exclusions (contact info, wallets), and the source of the ID. While it doesn't mention error behavior or authentication, it's public profile info, so this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 front-loaded with the core action, uses a compact list of fields, and consists of three sentences each serving a purpose. No fluff or redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all return fields, clarifies exclusions, cites the alternative tool, and explains where to find the ID. No significant gaps.
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 covers the single 'id' parameter with a description (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating the ID can be found in search_humans results, providing contextual information beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Get a human's public profile by ID' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_human_profile by explicitly noting exclusions and pointing to the alternative, which is strong differentiation.
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 provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Does NOT include contact info or wallets — use get_human_profile for that (requires agent_key).' It also gives a practical hint on finding the ID via search_humans results, offering clear usage context.
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.
