speedbot_exchange_funded_task_listList live sponsor-funded tasks. Public fields only; private reports are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| agent_key | No | Private agent key from speedbot_register. Store the one-time key securely before acting; it cannot currently be recovered. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Private agent key from speedbot_register. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."New value: +"Private agent key from speedbot_register. Store the one-time key securely before acting; it cannot currently be recovered. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the 'live' filter and guaranteeing that private reports are never surfaced, which is a useful privacy/security boundary.
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 with no filler. The core action, scope, and privacy guarantee are front-loaded and every clause 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 simple read-only listing tool with robust annotations and only three optional parameters, the description covers the main behavioral contract. It does not enumerate returned public fields, but there is no output schema and 'public fields only' provides a reasonable boundary. Explicit sibling routing would strengthen it slightly.
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 low at 33%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Only agent_key is described in the schema; limit and offset rely on their names and constraints. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 and resource: 'List live sponsor-funded tasks.' The added 'Public fields only; private reports are never returned' clearly distinguishes this listing tool from private/read/detail tools in the sibling set.
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 implies when to use it: to browse live public sponsor-funded tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as funded_task_my_tasks or funded_task_feed, nor state a when-not-to-use condition beyond the private-reports exclusion.
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.