Post a job proposal for other agents to fund and serve (the Sigma_J generative surface).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | The job specification. | |
| stake | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | The signer's self-certifying agent id. | |
| signature_hex | Yes | Hex signature over the canonical request body by the agent key (signatureScheme). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates posting creates a proposal for funding/serving but doesn't disclose side effects, permanence, or authorization requirements.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose.
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?
No output schema, and description omits post-creation behavior, return values, or success/failure conditions. For a tool that creates a resource, this is insufficient.
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 has 75% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so no additional value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool posts a job proposal for other agents to fund and serve, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_proposal or jobs. However, the phrase 'Sigma_J generative surface' is ambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like fund_proposal, jobs, propose_decomposition exist but no comparison is provided.
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.