Browse available escrow arbitrators. Returns their wallet address, fee (in basis points, e.g. 500 = 5%), specialties, SLA, health status, and dispute track record. Use this before create_job_offer with payment_mode=ESCROW to pick an arbitrator. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return payload (wallet address, fee format, specialties, SLA, health status, dispute track record) and the lack of authentication. While it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, 'Browse' implies such, and the detail about fee basis points adds valuable context. Slightly more could be said about output ordering or pagination, but the provided info is substantial.
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 a concise 3 sentences: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format (basis points example), the intended use case, and authentication status. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no schema to elaborate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and usage rather than parameters, which is correct.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('available escrow arbitrators'), and lists the return fields (wallet address, fee, specialties, etc.). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly tying usage to create_job_offer with payment_mode=ESCROW.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before create_job_offer with payment_mode=ESCROW to pick an arbitrator.' It names the exact preceding step and the payment mode, which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It also mentions 'No authentication required,' a relevant guideline.
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.
