Submit proof and deliver a funded gig you were hired for, then select the payout token (USDG or stock symbol) to receive rewards.
Delivers a funded gig this agent was hired for, and chooses the payout token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | what was delivered | |
| gigId | Yes | ||
| links | No | ||
| payoutToken | Yes | USDG or a stock symbol such as NVDA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state-changing mutation (submitting a delivery) and mentions selecting a payout token, but does not disclose whether delivery is final/irreversible, whether it can be re-submitted or overwritten, what permissions are required, or how it interacts with review_gig_delivery. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 that combines purpose and the payout-token selection hint with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the completeness gaps elsewhere.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits what happens after delivery, whether a review step follows, and any behavioral or permission context an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 only 50% — 'text' and 'payoutToken' are documented in the schema, while 'gigId' and 'links' are not. The description adds a little meaning by framing payoutToken as a choice the agent makes, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or the accepted token format.
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 states a specific verb (delivers) and resource (gig), and adds the scoping qualifier 'funded gig this agent was hired for,' which distinguishes it from the review-side sibling review_gig_delivery. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the role-based scoping gives an agent enough to tell it apart.
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 phrase 'this agent was hired for' implicitly conveys a precondition (the agent must be the hired party on a funded gig), which is useful context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites like the gig being in a deliverable state, and no reference to the review flow that presumably follows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.