Spawn a child agent with delegated budget and permissions. Phase 3 — not yet implemented.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the child agent | |
| description | No | Agent description | |
| budget_cents | No | Budget allocation in cents | |
| max_lifetime_hours | No | Maximum lifetime in hours (max 168 = 1 week) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core action (spawning a child agent with delegation) and the 'not yet implemented' status, which is critical. However, it omits details such as side effects (e.g., budget deduction, permission enforcement) and failure behavior beyond the implementation note.
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 two short sentences with the core statement front-loaded and the implementation status appended. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks explicit mention of return values or side effects, though the 'not yet implemented' note explains the immediate expectation. The missing usage guidance further reduces completeness.
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 all four parameters. The description adds minimal parameter nuance ('delegated budget and permissions') but does not map to specific schema properties, so it does not elevate the baseline.
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 ('spawn') and resource ('child agent') with the qualifier 'delegated budget and permissions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ae_create_transaction or ae_negotiate. The 'Phase 3 — not yet implemented' note adds implementation status without obscuring purpose.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where spawning an agent is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.