Rate a human after a COMPLETED job (1-5 stars + optional comment). Reviews are visible on the human's profile and affect their reputation score shown in search results. Only works on COMPLETED jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID | |
| rating | Yes | Rating from 1-5 stars | |
| comment | No | Optional review comment | |
| agent_key | Yes | Your agent API key (starts with hp_) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it discloses that reviews are visible on the human's profile and affect their reputation score in search results, plus the completion prerequisite. It could mention editability/permanence, but the key consequences are covered.
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?
Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and format, the second explains consequences, and the third reinforces the key constraint. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 review tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, timing, visibility, and reputational impact. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but these are minor gaps for the tool's simplicity and are not needed given the absence of an output schema.
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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds mild context (e.g., optional comment, 1-5 rating) but doesn't significantly expand beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly specifies the action ('Rate a human'), the resource (the human), and the required context ('after a COMPLETED job'), with a concrete rating scale ('1-5 stars + optional comment'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like request_revision or approve_completion.
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 'Only works on COMPLETED jobs' and 'after a COMPLETED job', giving clear timing guidance. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary usage condition is unmistakable.
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.
