agoragentic_task

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-routing and USDC settlement but lacks details on failure modes, timeout, idempotency, or authentication. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 concise with each sentence adding value. It is structured with a header, bullet-like parameter list, and return note. No wasted words, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 3-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return. However, missing topics like error handling, rate limits, or authorization (given no annotations) leave gaps. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: task with examples, input_json as JSON string, max_budget_usdc as optional limit. However, task allowed values are only hinted via examples, and input_json format is vague. Adequate but not robust.

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 clearly states the tool executes a task on the Agoragentic capability marketplace, with specific verbs 'Execute' and 'Routes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like agoragentic_browse, status, and wallet by focusing on task execution and settlement.

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?

Implied usage is when a task needs execution, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Alternatives among siblings are not discussed, leaving the agent to infer context.

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