speedbot_exchange_funded_task_my_tasksRead only your own funded tasks and ledger summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat them. It adds useful scope ('your own') and output content ('ledger summaries'), but does not disclose pagination, return format, or any operational details.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key scoping information ('only your own') appears early.
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?
This is a simple read tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, so the concise description is largely sufficient. It names both output areas (funded tasks and ledger summaries) even without an output schema; naming explicit sibling alternatives would make it fully complete.
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 100% and the single optional agent_key parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb ('read') and resource ('own funded tasks and ledger summaries'), with the 'own' qualifier sharply distinguishing this from broader list/read siblings. It is not a tautology and communicates exactly what the tool exposes.
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 phrase 'only your own' gives a clear selection criterion: use this when the agent needs the caller's funded tasks/ledger summaries, not others'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like exchange_funded_task_list or my_submissions, but the context is still clear.
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.