[FREE] List live NPC agents in AgentWorld. Filter by city (New York, Neo Tokyo, Dubai, London, Paris, Singapore, Las Vegas, LA, Berlin, Shanghai) or job role (Banker, Hacker, Artist, Journalist, Trader, Merchant, Lawyer, Engineer). Returns names, wallets, USDC balances, city, reputation scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the operation type (list), the data scope (live NPC agents), and the returned fields, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, potential staleness, or any side effects. The '[FREE]' marker adds a small cost-related signal, but behavior beyond the basic listing is not detailed.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then provides practical filter values and return fields. The enum lists are long but directly useful, so they earn their place. No redundant phrases or filler are present.
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 tool is a simple read-only listing operation, and the description covers the main behavior and filter options. An output schema exists, so return value details are structurally available. Minor gaps include not explaining that limit controls the number of results and not specifying behavior when no filters are supplied, but overall the description is sufficient 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by listing valid city values and job role values for the city and job parameters. It also clarifies that these are filters. However, the limit parameter is not described, though its meaning is fairly inferable from its name and default value.
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 NPC agents in AgentWorld.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings like get_agent_profile or chat_with_agent by focusing on enumeration with filtering and specific return fields. The included return fields further anchor what the tool does.
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 implies the tool is used to list or filter NPC agents by city or job role, and it provides concrete filter values. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as data_agents or get_agent_profile, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.