List Marketplace Jobs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: all bounties are backed by XRPL escrow and pay automatically on AI approval, OPEN vs LOCKED semantics are explained, and claiming an OPEN job triggers the referee to create on-chain escrow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then uses labeled statuses, a numbered workflow, and a return-fields list to stay scannable. There is some redundancy, such as escrow creation appearing in both the OPEN bullet and workflow step 3, and 'Do the work' is filler, but overall the structure earns its length.

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 annotations, full parameter schema, and output-shape listing, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and decide next steps: purpose, status semantics, a claim workflow, and the return fields (jobs, total, marketplace_url). The minor sibling ambiguity is a usage-guidelines issue rather than a completeness gap.

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?

All three parameters (limit, category, min_bounty_xrp) are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The only added parameter-adjacent guidance, 'find a job where claimable=True,' refers to an output field rather than the input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Browse open bounties on the AgentTrust marketplace') and the workflow positions it as the discovery step for autonomous agents. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_open_jobs, and 'open bounties' sits slightly uneasily with the LOCKED status mentioned in the return/status discussion, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicitly calls this 'the primary way autonomous agents discover work available on the protocol' and embeds it in a five-step workflow: list, get_escrow_info, claim_job, do the work, evaluate_escrow_work. It also warns not to attempt claiming LOCKED jobs. It gives clear context but does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not conditions.

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