GXEON Agent Marketplace

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile completely. The description contributes no additional behavioral context beyond them — it does not say what the guide contains, whether it is static, or how its steps relate to the sibling tools.

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 sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of leaving the guide's content undefined.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is the only place to tell the agent what comes back — e.g. that it yields a sequence of steps or which other tools it references. It offers none of that, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the return value or chain it with gxeon_list_services and gxeon_list_credit_packs.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the official GXEON machine-buyer flow for prepaid execution'), so an agent knows this retrieves a procedural guide rather than data. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like gxeon_list_services or gxeon_list_credit_packs, which an agent must infer are the actual data-listing calls.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of the sibling tools or the order in which they should be called. The phrase 'for prepaid execution' hints at context but stops short of telling the agent when this guide is the right call versus simply listing services or credit packs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description restates the non-mutating nature ('does not create a checkout or spend money'), which adds a small amount of scoping clarity but nothing about return contents, pricing shape, or a 'live' freshness caveat.

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 zero filler; the resource being listed is front-loaded and the safety caveat follows. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no-argument read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and that nothing is purchased. It could briefly indicate what the returned packs contain (e.g., price/quantity), but no output schema exists and no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. No parameter-related claims are made or needed.

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 (List) and a well-scoped resource (live prepaid GXEON request packs), which is clearly distinct from gxeon_list_services and gxeon_get_agent_buying_guide by resource type. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'does not create a checkout or spend money' implicitly steers the agent away from a purchase flow, which hints at when this tool is appropriate versus the buying-guide sibling. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: listings are leads, not guaranteed earnings or GXEON revenue, which sets expectations about data reliability that annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: the purpose first, then the caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and adds a meaningful caveat about the nature of the listings. A brief note on refresh cadence or pagination would round it out, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is missing.

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 ('List') and resource ('public paid-work opportunities from the Speedbot external opportunity preview'). A clear read of what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like gxeon_list_services or gxeon_list_credit_packs, so no sibling routing guidance.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the sibling listers. The 'current public paid-work opportunities' framing implies the context but leaves an agent to infer when this is preferable to the other list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with those annotations; the only added value is the loose content hint ('capabilities and prepaid-credit economics'). No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with the resource named first. The closing 'Read-only.' earns little since annotations already say it, keeping this just short of 5.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read-only lister with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the two payload categories (capabilities, prepaid-credit economics) an agent should expect back. It could say more about how to use the results, but nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GXEON capabilities and prepaid-credit economics'), so an agent knows it enumerates available offerings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like gxeon_list_credit_packs, which plausibly covers part of the same 'prepaid-credit' territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from gxeon_list_credit_packs or gxeon_get_agent_buying_guide. Usage is only weakly implied by 'currently available'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this in domain terms an agent cares about ('never creates a checkout or spends money'), which is meaningful added context for a tool whose name suggests purchasing, but it stops short of disclosing computation limits or return format.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the read-only caveat is appended exactly where it prevents misreading the name as a purchase 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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent uninformed about what a 'plan' returns (pack breakdown, pricing, savings) and how serviceId should be formatted. Adequate to know the tool's intent, but not enough to call it confidently for a 2-required-param tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only loosely maps its two terms ('service', 'number of units') to serviceId and units. No identifier format, no guidance on what constitutes a valid service, and no detail beyond what the schema's types already show.

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 and resource: 'Plan the lowest-cost prepaid GXEON pack combination' scoped to a service and unit count. This reads clearly as an optimization/planning tool, distinct from the sibling list_* tools, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen that contrast.

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 scope ('for a specific service and number of units') and the clarifying 'never creates a checkout or spends money' imply when to reach for it versus a purchase flow, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.