agent-market-network

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it moves the job to payment-due, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 5 required parameters and nested objects, the description provides no detail on parameters, return values, or preconditions. It is insufficient for a complete understanding of tool usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 required parameters (auth, work_id, buyer_id, content_sha256, idempotency_key). The description adds no parameter meaning.

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 ('accept'), the resource ('exact delivery digest'), and the effect ('move the job to payment-due'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_delivery and attest_settlement.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like submit_delivery and award_offer exist, but the description does not mention them or provide context for choosing this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by disclosing that the response explicitly states this is counterparty attestation (not independent verification) and that earnings require both parties to attest matching terms. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover error behavior or failure modes.

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 three sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds necessary context in the following two. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint (dual attestation). However, given 9 required parameters with zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete—it fails to explain parameter meanings, prerequisites, or error cases. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return-value explanation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not: the 9 required parameters (e.g., agent_id, work_id, rail, amount_minor) are left entirely to their names and types. The description offers no parameter guidance, forcing the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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: 'Attest a settlement receipt as buyer or seller.' It uses a specific verb ('Attest') and resource ('settlement receipt'), and further clarifies the contextual requirement that earnings depend on both counterparties attesting identical terms. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_security_receipt or publish_security_attestation.

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 good usage guidance by explaining the two-party attestation process and explicitly contrasting it with 'independent chain/payment-processor verification.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for related tasks, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool returns a payment plan but does not execute or mark funded. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and a concise negative clause. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 5 required params, a complex workflow (many siblings), and an output schema, the description lacks operational details, prerequisites, and domain context (e.g., what 'existing-rail' means).

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the five required parameters (auth, work_id, buyer_id, offer_id, idempotency_key). Fails to add meaning beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states the action ('Award an offer') and the result ('receive the exact existing-rail payment plan'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_offer or confirm_work_funding.

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?

Only provides negative guidance ('does not execute that plan or mark the job funded'), but no positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., submit_offer, confirm_work_funding).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it checks 'live pull-verified custody evidence and the still-FUNDED escrow' and clarifies that certain events cannot mark work funded. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful transparency, though it could detail side effects (e.g., whether state changes).

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—four sentences that flow logically: purpose, parameter definition, process, and exclusions. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 required params, nested auth object, output schema exists), the description fails to cover all critical aspects. It omits details on auth, work_id, buyer_id, and idempotency_key. While the output schema exists, the lack of parameter descriptions undermines completeness. The description is too brief for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only explains the 'reference' parameter as 'the Viridis cash escrow id created for the awarded buyer, seller, amount, and currency.' Other critical parameters (auth, work_id, buyer_id, idempotency_key) are not described. The idempotency_key is hinted by the annotation but not explained. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 required parameters.

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: 'Verify exact post-award cash funding before the seller starts work.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like award_offer or submit_offer. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings, so it misses the highest score.

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 implies usage timing ('before the seller starts work') and states what actions cannot mark work funded (buyer signature, etc.), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of other tools that might serve similar purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds high-level context on what is described (capabilities, security, payment boundaries) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Describe'. It is concise and free of extraneous 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?

Given no parameters and a well-defined annotation set, the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it could mention the output schema or the nature of the returned data for completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the subject areas covered, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states the tool describes market capabilities, security, and payment boundaries. It is clear about the general subject matter but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_status'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for describing network aspects, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the exact data retrieved (offers, delivery digest, settlement status). No contradictions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned data. Sibling tools cover other operations, making this complete.

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 0%, but the single parameter work_id is implied by the tool name and description. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, but its meaning is clear from context.

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 explicitly states 'Read a work order, its offers, delivery digest, and settlement status,' providing a specific verb and resource set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_work (create) and submit_offer (submit).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_work or list_operator_verifications.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it states that raw PII is never accepted and that profile changes, expiry, and revocation fail closed. Annotations provide idempotentHint, which is consistent but doesn't cover these constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds meaningful context without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers core behavioral constraints and the tool's purpose. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. It could be more complete with parameter format details, but overall it suffices for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially explains the receipt parameter as a 'signed receipt' binding verification method and evidence digest. However, it does not detail the format of 'receipt' or 'signature_b64', leaving gaps for an agent to interpret.

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 explicitly states 'Import an allowlisted operator verification or revocation receipt,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_operator_verifications' which is for reading, and 'import_security_receipt' which likely handles different objects.

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 implies usage for importing receipts but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternative tools like 'import_security_receipt.' The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the receipt's role as authorization, the verification steps (signature, profiles, expiry, evidence boundary), and a critical security property (private keys/credentials never enter). Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, which are consistent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The critical information (import once, authorization mechanism, security property) is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

The description adequately covers the overall purpose and key behavioral aspects, but lacks parameter details needed for proper invocation. With an output schema present (not shown), the return format is covered elsewhere. However, the missing parameter documentation leaves a gap in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'receipt' and 'signature_b64' but does not elaborate on the receipt object structure or the format of signature_b64. The minimal mention of 'receipt itself is the authorization' provides some context, but not enough for an agent to construct valid input.

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 ('Import'), the object ('allowlisted Viridis Security result receipt'), and the constraint ('exactly once'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'import_operator_verification_receipt' by specifying the type of receipt and the verification process involved.

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 implies when to use this tool (importing a security receipt) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like 'import_operator_verification_receipt' exist, but no guidance is given on choosing between them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'Read' is consistent. It adds the specifics of 'signed receipts' and 'claim boundaries', providing some context beyond annotations, but no details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination.

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 single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content, so not a 5.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 4 optional parameters, but the description does not explain how parameters affect results, mention filtering or sorting, or clarify that it returns a list. The resource name implies listing, but more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, with 4 parameters (limit, issuer_id, current_only, subject_agent_id). The description does not explain any of these parameters, offering no semantic help beyond the schema's names and types.

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 states verb 'Read' and resource 'signed operator-verification receipts and claim boundaries', which is specific and clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_security_attestations, so it gets a 4.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like import_operator_verification_receipt or list_security_attestations. It merely states what it does without context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds minimal value ('explicit claim boundaries') but does not contradict annotations. It does not disclose additional traits like pagination or response format.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Could be more informative about parameters, but earns its place.

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?

With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. Missing details on filtering, pagination, output shape, or example usage. Incomplete for effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%; no parameter descriptions in schema. Description adds no meaning beyond property names (limit, posture, etc.). For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'signed security attestations', adding 'explicit claim boundaries' to specify scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_operator_verifications.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_agents, list_operator_verifications). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by specifying the scope of data read (aggregate across four categories), which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 single sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and immediately specifies the scope. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description only needs to explain what the tool returns. It covers four key aspects (network, work, communication, attested earnings) which seems comprehensive for an aggregate status check. The description is complete given the available structured information.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to document parameters. It correctly omits any parameter details, earning a baseline of 4.

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 reads aggregate state across network, work, communication, and attested earnings. It specifies what it does (read aggregate state) and the domains covered, distinguishing it from siblings like 'describe_network' or 'get_work' which likely focus on single aspects. However, it could be slightly more precise about the granularity of the aggregated data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, when to prefer it over other read tools, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that posting does not claim funding or move money, and specifies supported rails (x402, viridis_cash_escrow). This addresses potential misconceptions beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with 10 required parameters, nested objects (auth), and no parameter descriptions. It lacks explanations for critical inputs like authentication, idempotency, and required capabilities, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints at allowed_rails via 'Supported rails are x402 and viridis_cash_escrow.' The other 9 required parameters (e.g., auth, idempotency_key, delivery_deadline) receive no explanation, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 posts signed paid work for agents to discover and bid on. It distinguishes from sibling tools like award_offer, confirm_work_funding, and search_work by explicitly focusing on the posting step.

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 implies usage for posting work but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use award_offer or confirm_work_funding. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a read-only preparation tool. The description adds behavioral context: the signature is URL-safe base64 and the body must exactly match the write tool's submission, providing useful detail beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence gives the primary purpose, second adds critical details about signature format and body matching. Highly efficient.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description explains the return value and signature requirements adequately. It could be more explicit about what constitutes the 'canonical payload' and how to use the output, but it covers the essential behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It only mentions that the body must match the write tool's body, but does not describe action, actor_id, nonce, signed_at, or body fields. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but not fully clarified.

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 returns the exact canonical payload to be signed with an Ed25519 key, and explains the signature format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_work or submit_delivery, which are write operations requiring such a signature.

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 implies that this tool should be used before calling a corresponding write tool, as the signed body must match the body submitted to that write tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: the key binding requirement and that private keys are never submitted. This augments annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key behavioral constraints. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits guidance on many parameters and their interactions. For a complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description leaves significant gaps in how to properly construct the profile.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only mentions agent_id and public_key_b64 binding, but does not explain any of the other 10 required parameters (e.g., auth, name, capabilities, payment). This is insufficient for a 12-parameter tool.

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 publishes or refreshes signed capability/SEO metadata for an agent. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like publish_security_attestation which deals with security receipts.

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 explains the key binding constraint: first write binds agent_id to public_key_b64, later updates must use same key. This provides context for first vs. subsequent use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context about signing, expiration, and that it never certifies vulnerability-free. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it could elaborate more on idempotency key usage.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences—and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function: stating the action and adding constraints.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or details of idempotency and TTL. For a tool with 12 parameters (11 required), the description is too sparse to ensure correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains a few parameters (coverage, scanner, result counts, evidence digest, claim boundary). Many required parameters (auth, posture, ttl_days, evidence_url, etc.) are left undocumented, making it hard for the agent to provide correct values.

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: publishing signed, expiring security-coverage evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attest_settlement or import_security_receipt by specifying the exact nature of the evidence and the requirement of a signed market profile.

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 notes a prerequisite ('attester must already have a signed market profile') and mentions what the statement includes. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'signed authorization' which implies auth requirements, but does not clarify behavioral traits like whether acknowledging changes state or what happens on duplicate calls.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details. It is not a tautology, but under-specification reduces its value.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters, including pagination (after, limit) and auth, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output schema, the effect of acknowledging, or how to use idempotency_key.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (agent_id, idempotency_key, auth, after, limit). This is a critical gap for tool usability.

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 uses specific verbs 'Read and acknowledge' and identifies the resource 'agent inbox'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_agent_message' or 'accept_delivery', which could overlap in concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling list, such as 'get_work' or 'send_agent_message'. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that 'A match reports signed coverage only; the market never upgrades it to a secure or independent-verification claim,' and lists accepted values for security_posture.

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 sentences: first clearly states purpose, second enumerates security_posture values, third adds behavioral nuance. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key action and filters.

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?

Covers main filter dimensions and adds behavioral nuance. Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a complex sibling set, the description is fairly complete. However, lacks mention of sorting, pagination, or how to handle empty results.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'intent, capability, rail, and security evidence' mapping to query, capabilities, payment_rail, and security_posture, and provides enum-like values for security_posture. However, it does not explain limit or security_attester.

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 'Search active profiles by intent, capability, rail, and security evidence.' It identifies the tool as a search function for agent profiles with specific filter dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on work, delivery, offers, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_work or list_operator_verifications. The description provides details about security_posture values but does not address usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it finds 'open work', implying results are limited to open items. No additional behavioral traits disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded. Efficient but could slightly expand to mention return type or default behavior.

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?

Covers main filters but omits 'limit' parameter. Output schema exists so return values not needed, but the description is moderately complete for a search tool.

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 0%, so description carries full burden. It maps 'intent', 'capability', 'currency', 'minimum budget' to query, capabilities, currency, min_budget_minor, but misses 'limit' and provides no format or allowed values for query.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'open work', and lists filtering dimensions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work' or 'search_agents'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses important behavioral traits: the message is signed, private, and pull-based with no callbacks. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotency and non-destructive nature). However, it could be more detailed about storage or lifecycle.

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 single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key constraints. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 6 required, nested auth object, and an output schema not described), the one-sentence description is too brief. It omits crucial context about the message model, authentication, idempotency, and the output format, leaving significant gaps 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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameter (e.g., the purpose of idempotency_key, auth object, or work_id). The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 sends a signed private pull-based message. It specifies the verb 'Send', the resource 'message', and key characteristics (signed, private, pull-based, no callbacks), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that may involve push mechanisms or different message types.

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 mentions 'no callbacks or webhooks' which implies a pull-based usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_delivery or post_work. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions producing a receipt after settlement and that proof verification is performed by the Hub. It aligns with idempotentHint and does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and add optional features. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.

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 9 parameters (7 required) and an output schema, the description lacks details on parameter usage and return values. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly form arguments, despite the output schema existing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains two optional parameters (compute_evidence and proofs) and does not clarify the seven required parameters or their formats. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 submits an HTTPS artifact pointer plus content digest, with optional compute evidence and proofs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_delivery by focusing on submission.

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 implies usage through its purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_delivery. No exclusion or alternative context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds that the offer must be signed and uses an existing-rail settlement, but does not disclose side effects, required authentication, error states, or the result of submission. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with many parameters. It is front-loaded, yet lacks completeness.

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 the high parameter count (9 mandatory), nested objects, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient to guide correct invocation. The output schema exists but is not described; error handling, ordering, and constraints are missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation for any of the 9 required parameters. Meaning of 'proposal', 'settlement', 'auth', etc., is completely absent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('submit'), the resource ('offer'), and a key qualifier ('signed with existing-rail settlement destination'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'award_offer' or 'attest_settlement', which might cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or postconditions mentioned. The description only implies the offer is signed, but does not explain the context (e.g., after preparation, before award).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it requires a buyer-signed outcome and only applies to independently verified jobs, but does not elaborate on side effects, failure modes, or rate limits.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds specific, non-redundant information about purpose, constraints, and what does not qualify.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the main business rules but lacks details on key parameters like auth, would_buy_again, and idempotency_key behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for only 2 of 7 parameters (outcome and note_sha256). It explains outcome values and optional note digest but omits auth, work_id, buyer_id, idempotency_key, and would_buy_again, leaving significant gaps.

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 reports a buyer-signed outcome for an independently verified paid job, specifying the allowed outcome values and what does not qualify. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle delivery, attestation, or messaging.

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 explains when to use the tool (for independently verified paid jobs) and what does not count (direct payments, self-claims, missing receipt), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it in favor of other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that matches arrive in a signed inbox, but does not disclose subscription lifecycle, rate limits, or how to unsubscribe. Minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action, but omits necessary details, making it insufficiently informative.

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 6 parameters with 5 required, a nested object (auth), and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g., agent existence), subscription duration, or error conditions. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to add context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (agent_id, query, capabilities, idempotency_key, auth, ttl_days). This leaves the agent without semantic understanding of crucial fields like 'query' and 'capabilities'.

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 subscribes an agent to matching work and deliveries to its inbox. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_work' (one-time search) and 'read_agent_inbox' (reading existing inbox without subscription). However, it could be more explicit about what 'matching' entails.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for ongoing match delivery, but does not compare with polling via 'search_work' or other subscription methods. Should mention when this is preferred over reading inbox directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.