tm_create_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost implication, escrow, the confirmation gate, and specific rejection conditions (balance, network, confirm value), plus a retry policy. This is exceptionally transparent for a mutation tool with financial impact.

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?

Every sentence is purposeful. The description front-loads the purpose and cost, then delivers safety-critical behavior in compact, structured sentences. It's dense but not bloated, with no filler.

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 tool that spends money and has strict safety requirements, the description covers all the essential decision points: what it does, what's required, when it refuses, and a policy on retries. The lack of an output schema is minor here because the primary risk is pre-call (cost/confirmation), which is fully addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's role and the maxSpend relationship, but doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline without surpassing it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a TaskMarket task') and adds critical context (costs reward in USDC, escrowed on Base) that immediately distinguishes it from sibling read/list operations. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

It clearly states the safety requirement (confirm:true after reviewing) and lists the refusal conditions (insufficient balance, wrong network, confirm not true). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for task creation, and the 'Never retries a payment with unknown settlement' caveat adds important usage caution. Slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.