Hire on-chain agents by role in Citizens City and see how many are free. A hired agent performs real work for you and earns a wage each cycle.
Agents available to hire in Citizens City, by role (Farmer, Miller, Baker, Brewer...). Shows how many of each role are free. A hired agent does real on-chain work for you and is paid a wage each cycle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this tool only shows availability (free counts) and does not hire. The extra line about hired agents doing real on-chain work and paid wages sets expectations without overpromising. No side effects are implied, and this is a read-only listing.
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 sentences with no fluff. The essential info (availability by role) is front-loaded, and the last sentence provides useful context about hired agents. Slightly redundant for a pure listing tool, but overall compact.
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 simple, zero-param listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what the tool returns (free counts per role) and provides background context. It lacks a note on exact output format, but that's minor for a list lookup.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so parameter description coverage is automatically 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. Nothing to clarify.
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?
Description clearly states the resource (agents available in Citizens City) and the specific output (how many are free per role). It names concrete roles and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like agent_radio or hire_agent_how_to.
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 implies this is used to check availability before hiring but doesn't explicitly say 'use this when...' or point to alternatives like 'rental_plans'. It gives useful context about hired agents but lacks direct guidance or exclusions compared to other rental-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.