ecash_create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a private key and sufficient ECASH balance are required, which is useful operational context. However, it does not mention side effects such as funds being deducted, immediate posting, or what is returned, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second covers requirements. Every word earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded with zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return value (e.g., job ID), so the agent may not know what to expect after creation, leaving a minor 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no parameter-specific information, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new job in the ECASH marketplace,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecash_accept_job or ecash_submit_work that perform different marketplace actions.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating jobs in the marketplace and adds prerequisites (ECASH_PRIVATE_KEY and sufficient balance). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose among siblings makes usage obvious.

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