Eligible staked agent votes on a vote-mode dispute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| pay | Yes | ||
| nonce | Yes | from get_nonce (single-use, 5 min) | |
| wallet | Yes | your base58 Solana pubkey | |
| signature | Yes | base58 ed25519 signature of UTF-8 'agentmarket-auth:<nonce>' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / nonce / descriptionAdded value: +"from get_nonce (single-use, 5 min)"Input schema / properties / signature / descriptionAdded value: +"base58 ed25519 signature of UTF-8 'agentmarket-auth:<nonce>'"Input schema / properties / wallet / descriptionAdded value: +"your base58 Solana pubkey"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It confirms a vote (a mutation), but does not say whether the vote is final, what happens after voting, what 'pay' selects, or any outcome/reversibility behavior. Only the eligibility precondition is 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?
A single efficient sentence with the actor and target front-loaded and zero padding. It is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining vote direction, authentication, or result, so an agent lacks enough to call it correctly beyond the eligibility hint.
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 60%: nonce, wallet, and signature are documented in the schema, but the critical 'id' and 'pay' parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving ambiguous what 'pay' (a boolean) actually controls.
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?
States a specific verb (votes) and resource (vote-mode dispute), and names the eligibility condition (staked agent). It distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling dispute_task, which presumably initiates a dispute, but does not explicitly differentiate. Clear enough to identify the operation.
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?
Implies usage context via 'eligible staked agent' and 'vote-mode dispute,' giving an implicit precondition. However, it names no alternatives and does not state when-not to use it or how it relates to dispute_task.
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.