Get full details of a service including pricing, SLA, and input/output schemas. Call this before ae_create_transaction to understand what the service expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | Yes | UUID of the service |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the output contents (pricing, SLA, schemas). It does not detail auth or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a clear usage directive. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 description explains what the response will include (pricing, SLA, schemas) and provides a real-world usage context. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but for a single-parameter get tool it is sufficiently 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?
The schema already describes service_id as a UUID with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a service', listing specific content (pricing, SLA, schemas). It distinguishes from siblings like ae_list_services by focusing on a single service's detailed information.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this before ae_create_transaction to understand service expectations, providing clear contextual usage. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, from service discovery and registration to transaction negotiation and output verification. The only overlapping pair, ae_discover_services and ae_list_services, is explicitly differentiated by semantic search vs. categorical browsing.
All tools follow the consistent ae_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, deliver, and verify. The uniform prefix and naming convention make the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for a marketplace platform, covering service lifecycle, transaction workflow, wallet, trust, and agent management. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant, keeping the surface area manageable.
The tool set covers the full service and transaction lifecycle: register/list/discover/get services, create/negotiate/deliver/verify transactions, plus wallet and trust queries. Minor gaps exist such as no service update/delete or transaction listing, but core workflows are fully supported.