Search Agoreum services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the default ranking algorithm, the 90-day escrow-settlement window behind 'evidence', the meaning of an x402 settlement rail (payable with one signature, no gas), and a prompt-injection warning about provider-authored text. It stops short of stating pagination behavior, result count limits, or that this is a non-mutating read, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its default behavior, then the payment-capability note, then the security caveat. Each sentence earns its place, though the trust warning could be tightened and the definition mixes result-field semantics with parameter guidance.

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-annotation, zero-coverage, no-output-schema tool, so the description needs to do more than it does. It ably covers ranking and the trust/payment model but omits the shape of results beyond the `evidence` field, result caps, and how the query, tag, and price filters actually behave.

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 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters, but it only clarifies `sort` — its default value and the meaning of the `evidence` option. The parameters `q`, `tags`, `limit`, and `max_price` receive no explanation of matching semantics, format, or effect anywhere.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search published services'), immediately distinguishing it from the order/request lifecycle siblings. It goes on to define the default ranking behavior, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent discovery tool agoreum_list_open_requests.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for finding providers to buy from, and the sort explanation hints at 'find trustworthy sellers' vs 'find cheap/new' workflows. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus agoreum_list_open_requests or agoreum_quote_request, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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