TaskMarket Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses pay-per-call cost ($0.001 USDC), the payment scheme (x402 v2, EIP-3009, USDC), the requirement for a valid settled payment, and that malformed arguments are never charged. This is significant behavioral context beyond a generic retrieve tool, though it does not cover error behavior for missing or invalid task IDs.

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 two sentences: first states the function, second covers payment details. It is front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The minor double period at the end is negligible; overall it is concise and structured well.

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 there is no output schema, the description lists the expected fields (reward, mode, deadline, acceptance criteria, demand) which gives a clear idea of the return. It also covers payment requirements. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a single-task retrieval this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%: taskId is described as a 32-byte hex id, and payment as a base64 X-PAYMENT value with instructions to omit for payment terms. The description adds cost and payment context but does not further elaborate on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 and resource: 'Full details of one TaskMarket task by ID'. It enumerates the fields returned (reward, mode, deadline, acceptance criteria, demand), making the tool's purpose distinct from its siblings (list, submissions). The purpose is unambiguous and informative.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves a single task by ID, which differentiates it from list and submissions tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no exclusion or competitor guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.001 USDC), the exact payment scheme (x402 v2, EIP-3009), and that malformed arguments aren't charged — valuable operational context. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., array of tasks, pagination, order) or any rate limits. For a listing tool this is a notable omission, though the payment details are well covered.

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 and purpose-first: it states what the tool lists, then the commercial terms. It's not overly verbose, and every sentence provides useful information (purpose, payment cost, payment workflow). However, the payment details are somewhat dense and could be slightly streamlined, but overall it's well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is a paid list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core usage (listing tasks, payment mechanics, cost), which is sufficient for an agent to decide and attempt a call. It lacks an explicit description of the response structure (e.g., array of task objects, fields), but the first sentence implies the return fields. Given the simplicity and the clear payment protocol, completeness is strong, though not exhaustive.

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 100%: the sole 'payment' parameter has a clear description explaining it's a base64 X-PAYMENT header and that omitting it returns terms. The description adds the payment scheme context (x402, USDC) beyond the schema, but this is supplementary rather than essential for understanding the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 ('List') and a concrete resource ('open TaskMarket tasks') with examples of what types (bounties/benchmarks/auctions) and what fields are returned (reward, mode, deadline, submission demand). This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings tm_get_task (single task) and tm_task_submissions (submissions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains how to use the tool in terms of the payment flow: omit 'payment' to get terms, then pass the payment header to get data. It also states that every call requires a settled payment. It doesn't explicitly say 'use when you need to list tasks' vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear and the siblings are distinct enough that an agent can infer usage. The lack of explicit when-not-to-use is a minor gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the pay-per-call requirement ($0.001 USDC via x402), the need for a valid settled payment, and the guarantee that malformed arguments are never charged. This goes beyond generic descriptions and helps the agent understand the cost and execution conditions. It does not mention side effects, but as a listing operation it is read-only by nature, and the payment detail is the most critical behavioral aspect.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by payment details. Each sentence contributes value. There is a minor typo (double period at the end) and the payment section could be more compact, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, the required payment, and the behavior on malformed arguments. It gives a hint of the output content (workers, ratings, artifacts). It does not mention return format or pagination, but these are likely not critical for such a tool, especially given no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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 100%, so both taskId and payment are already documented. The description adds context for the payment parameter by explaining the payment scheme and charging behavior, reinforcing the schema's description. However, it does not add new meaning for taskId beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, the description's added value is marginal, warranting a baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'submissions of one TaskMarket task by ID', and the specific content (workers, ratings, artifacts). This distinguishes it from siblings: tm_get_task likely retrieves a single task and tm_list_tasks lists tasks, while this tool lists submissions for a specific task. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need submissions for a specific task by ID) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Payment requirements are mentioned, but no explicit routing compared to sibling tools. The use case is inferable from the purpose, but no exclusions or explicit alternative conditions are given.

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