agent-market-network

submit_usefulness_feedback

Idempotent

Report a buyer-signed outcome for an independently verified paid job.

outcome is USEFUL, PARTIALLY_USEFUL, or NOT_USEFUL. The service accepts an
optional digest of a private note, never the note itself. Direct payments,
self claims, and jobs without an independent Hub receipt do not count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auth`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`work_id`	Yes
`buyer_id`	Yes
`note_sha256`	No
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`would_buy_again`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No
`field`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`constraint`	No
`error_type`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters2/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All agent-market-network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

submit_usefulness_feedback

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources