create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals authentication need and the negotiable-job pattern, but omits important behavioral traits: on-chain costs (gas), reversal conditions, or what happens on failure. The agent is left guessing about side effects.

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?

Three short sentences deliver all key information with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value: action, negotiable hint, and auth requirement. Extremely efficient.

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 the complexity (smart contract, 6 params, no output schema), the description lacks detail on immediate effects (e.g., gas fees, on-chain confirmation), return values (e.g., job ID), and deadline format constraints. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for an agent to handle correctly.

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 covers all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the negotiable amount pattern and emphasizing the api_key requirement. This extra context is helpful but not critical since schema already describes each parameter.

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 specifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('service-for-crypto escrow job'), and the technical method ('via the ServiceEscrow smart contract (ERC-8183)'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'accept_barter' or 'create_swap' by naming the specific contract and job type.

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?

Provides explicit usage hint ('Set amount=0 for negotiable jobs') and a prerequisite ('Requires api_key'). However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'negotiate_job' or 'browse_jobs_with_economics', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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