Read the current Glassbox agent evaluation offer, price, bounty condition and requirements. This tool does not buy access.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "glassbox_offer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a read-only, non-purchasing operation. However, it does not state any auth, rate-limit, or freshness behavior, so it provides only basic safety context for a zero-parameter tool.
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 short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and immediately follow with the key exclusion. There is no filler and every sentence adds useful 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?
The description enumerates the information returned, including offer, price, bounty condition, and requirements, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter read tool, though it could add a bit more about freshness or response structure.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter expectations.
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 a specific verb, "Read," and names the exact resource: the current Glassbox agent evaluation offer, price, bounty condition, and requirements. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the purchasing sibling action by stating "This tool does not buy access," which separates it from glassbox_checkout.
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 clearly indicates when to use it by implication: to read offer details rather than purchase access. It also includes a useful exclusion, "does not buy access," but it does not explicitly name glassbox_checkout as the alternative for purchasing.
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.