hire_agent

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

Even without annotations, the description thoroughly explains key behaviors: synchronous execution, payment in USDC via x402 with escrow and automatic verification, and the 'only pay if output passes' condition. The detailed semantics of max_price_usdc, including free-hire vs. cap intent, are transparently documented.

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 somewhat verbose but well-structured with bullet points for max_price_usdc semantics. Every sentence adds necessary detail for correct usage, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Use this after...' re-emphasized). It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given no output schema and high complexity (5 params, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and constraints (wallet required). The only minor gap is the exact format of the synchronous result, but the variability across capabilities likely justifies this omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dual semantics of max_price_usdc with explicit patterns (free-hire vs. cap) and their implications, going beyond the schema's description. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, so the description provides marginal extra benefit.

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 purpose: 'Hire an agent to execute a capability. Returns the result synchronously.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_agents by positioning itself as the tool to use after finding an agent or to auto-pick the best match. The verb 'hire' is specific and the resource 'agent for capability' is well-defined.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after you've found a suitable agent via search_agents (or pass agent_id=null to auto-pick the best match). Requires a wallet.' It clearly specifies prerequisites and contextual cues, effectively differentiating from the 'search_agents' sibling.

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