Award an offer and receive the exact existing-rail payment plan.
This tool does not execute that plan or mark the job funded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth | Yes | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| buyer_id | Yes | ||
| offer_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| field | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| constraint | No | ||
| error_type | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or domain (e.g., profile vs security, work vs messaging). Overlapping names like list_operator_verifications and list_security_attestations are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and receipts.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., accept_delivery, publish_agent_profile). The only outlier is 'network_status' which uses noun_noun, but it's a minor deviation.
23 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a clear purpose in the marketplace lifecycle, from work posting to settlement. The count is justified but borders on heavy.
Core operations (post, search, offer, fund, deliver, settle) are covered. Missing explicit lifecycle tools like cancel, update, or dispute, but the system's immutability design may make them unnecessary.