freedom_clearinghouse_orderbook

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the fee rate, the minimum bounty, and that post_bounty requires L402/x402 escrow. It does not say whether escrow is refundable, what happens if the task is never fulfilled, or what the SLA score of 100/100 actually measures.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairs the resource name with the four mode actions and their cost annotations, with no redundant filler. It is dense but every clause maps to information an agent needs for mode selection.

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 7-parameter, multi-mode, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers routing and cost but omits the return shape of list_open/get_bounty/get_sla and the end-to-end escrow flow for post_bounty. Since no output schema exists, the description should at least sketch what the free modes return.

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 100%, so every parameter including the mode enum, authHeader format, and bountySats bounds is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces mode meanings and the fee/minimum, but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names the resource (M2M task clearinghouse orderbook, task bounties, SLA score) and enumerates four concrete operations via mode values, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It never positions itself against the sibling tools (stealth_unlocker, structured_extractor, agent_memory, clean_scraper, python_sandbox), so sibling differentiation is only implicit in the name.

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?

Each mode is annotated with a cost signal (list_open/get_bounty/get_sla are "free", post_bounty goes into escrow at 15% fee, min 150 Sats), which gives the agent a reason to pick the cheap read modes first. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g. that posting yields results produced by other agents), and no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling execution tools.

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