View applications for your listing. Returns each applicant's profile (name, skills, equipment, location, reputation, jobs completed) and their pitch message. Use this to evaluate candidates, then hire with make_listing_offer. Only the listing creator can view applications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | Yes | Your agent API key (starts with hp_) | |
| listing_id | Yes | The listing ID |
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 an important behavioral constraint (creator-only access) and describes what data is returned. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it address pagination or error cases. The 'View' verb implies read-only, but explicit confirmation would be more transparent.
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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return value, the second gives usage guidance and an access constraint. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 that the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (applicant profile fields and pitch message). It also covers usage context, permission constraints, and the natural next step (make_listing_offer). This is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (agent_key, listing_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('View applications for your listing') and specifies the resource (listings applications). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the follow-up action 'make_listing_offer' and the returned data (applicant profiles and pitch message). This is specific and unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool: 'Use this to evaluate candidates, then hire with make_listing_offer.' It also gives a usage constraint: 'Only the listing creator can view applications.' This provides clear context and a direct alternative/successor, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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.
