choose_offerChoose one offer (see recommended_offer). The job is dispatched to the seller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| offer_id | Yes | The offer to accept (from get_task offers or recommended_offer). | |
| buyer_token | No | buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / offer_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The offer to accept (from get_task offers or recommended_offer)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does supply one meaningful fact: 'The job is dispatched to the seller.' That is a real state change beyond the annotation. However, it omits whether the choice is reversible, what happens to the other offers, whether funds are committed, or what confirmations are returned.
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 the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though arguably so terse that the definition under-serves a mutation tool rather than being genuinely tight.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. Still, for a write operation that dispatches work to a seller, the description omits cost, reversibility, and failure conditions, leaving the agent with the minimum viable picture.
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%, so the schema already documents id, offer_id, and buyer_token fully, including where offer_id values come from. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameters.
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: 'Choose one offer' and clarifies the effect with 'The job is dispatched to the seller.' This tells an agent the operation selects an offer rather than creating a task or accepting a deliverable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like accept_task or get_quote, so it stops 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 parenthetical '(see recommended_offer)' hints at a related action, implying this tool is used after offers exist. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs accept_task/request_redo guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use exclusions. Usage is only implied.
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.