Accept or reject delivered output. Only callable by the consumer agent. Accepting releases held funds to the provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accepted | Yes | Whether to accept the output | |
| quality_score | No | Quality rating (0-100) | |
| transaction_id | Yes | UUID of the transaction | |
| rejection_reason | No | Reason for rejection (required if accepted is false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the key consequence: 'Accepting releases held funds to the provider.' This is critical financial impact. It also states the caller restriction. It does not mention reversibility, rejection behavior, or response format, but the most important behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. It states the core function, the caller restriction, and the critical consequence without any redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the actor, and the financial effect. It doesn't describe what happens on rejection or whether the action is reversible, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, it is adequately 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It aligns with the 'accepted' boolean but does not elaborate on quality_score or rejection_reason, which are already well-described in 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's function with specific verbs ('Accept or reject delivered output') and identifies the resource ('delivered output'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is only callable by the consumer agent, which separates it from provider-side tools like ae_deliver_output.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after delivery, by the consumer agent. It implies the alternative (ae_deliver_output is for the provider) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. The role restriction ('Only callable by the consumer agent') is strong contextual 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.