Submit a negotiation action on a transaction. Supports counter-offers, accepting, or rejecting the current terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Negotiation action | |
| message | No | Message to include with the negotiation action | |
| transaction_id | Yes | UUID of the transaction | |
| proposed_price_cents | No | Counter-offer price in cents (required for 'counter' action) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention whether the action is a write/mutation, any state changes (e.g., accepting finalizes the deal), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Simply saying 'submit a negotiation action' is insufficient for behavioral transparency.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the supported actions. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers minimal behavioral or contextual information. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or consequences of each action, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the enum values for 'action' and the conditional requirement for 'proposed_price_cents'. The description text adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 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 tool submits a negotiation action on a transaction, listing the supported actions (counter, accept, reject). It is not a tautology and is specific to the negotiation domain, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ae_create_transaction.
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 for negotiation actions on transactions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., transaction state), or when not to use it. The usage context is inferred from the tool name and action list rather than stated.
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.