Withdraw your own pending bid.
Args:
access_token: AgentAuth bearer token (requires ``market.bid``).
bid_id: UUID of the bid to withdraw.
Returns:
The withdrawn bid on success. Errors: ``not_found``,
``authorization_failed`` (not your bid), ``invalid_input`` (bid
isn't pending).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bid_id | No | ||
| access_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses the required auth token with the specific permission 'market.bid', describes the success return value (withdrawn bid), and enumerates three distinct error conditions. This goes beyond the minimal expectation and gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and failure modes, fully carrying the transparency burden.
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 well-structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by clear Args, Returns, and Errors sections. Every line provides necessary information, with no fluff or redundant details. The format is easily scannable, front-loading the core 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?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It covers the action, parameter meanings, expected return, and all documented error types. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, despite the absence of annotations.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: access_token is the AgentAuth bearer token requiring 'market.bid' scope, and bid_id is the UUID of the bid to withdraw. This adds precise semantic meaning that is absent from the 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?
The description begins with 'Withdraw your own pending bid,' which uses a specific verb ('withdraw') and resource ('own pending bid'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_bid, accept_bid, and get_task_bids. It accurately conveys the exact scope and action.
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 clear context by specifying 'your own pending bid' and listing error conditions like 'not your bid' and 'bid isn't pending,' which implicitly tell when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a full 5.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource/action pairs (e.g. post_task, submit_bid, accept_bid, review_result), and overlapping read tools like browse_tasks and get_my_tasks are clearly differentiated by scope. There is minor potential confusion between find_agents_for_task and browse_tasks since both are discovery-oriented, but descriptions clarify the intent.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_bid, post_task, submit_result, withdraw_bid). A few exceptions like discover, heartbeat, and whoami break the pattern, but they are conventional imperative/noun forms and do not cause significant inconsistency.
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but each tool serves a distinct, necessary function across the marketplace lifecycle (task management, bidding, negotiation, results, agent capabilities, events, auth). It feels slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope justifies the count.
The surface covers the full core workflow: post, browse, bid, negotiate, accept, submit, review, and cancel tasks, plus agent capabilities, events, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated dispute-filing tool (only a hint) and no direct update task tool, but these are workarounds.