Place a compute bid (settled in USDC)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "place_compute_order"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Settled in USDC" usefully signals a monetary commitment, but it never states that this is an irreversible write, that funds are escrowed or deducted, what authorization or wallet is required, or what happens to the bid afterward.
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?
It is a single front-loaded fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted. The brevity tips into under-specification rather than tightness, which is why it is not a 5.
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?
This is a zero-parameter, financially committing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what is bid on, the outcome, or the response. For a tool this consequential, far more context is needed before an agent can safely invoke it.
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 declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. However, the absence of any input is itself confusing for a bid-placement action and the description offers no explanation of how the target offer or price is determined.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Place a compute bid") plus the settlement currency, so the agent knows this creates a bid rather than listing offers or fetching quotes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gpu_quote or list_compute_offer, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus gpu_quote, list_compute_offer, or the futures_* tools, and no preconditions such as needing a quote first or having funds available. The agent must infer the entire workflow.
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.