Single tool 'execute_skill_action' has a minimal description (97 chars) that lacks actionable context. The input schema is present but the parameter 'query_payload' has only a generic description ('Input execution payload for this skill'). No output schema is documented, the tool returns a hardcoded JSON string with no structure definition. The tool name does not clearly convey what 'skill action' means in the context of agent-to-agent negotiation. No error handling guidance, no parameter constraints, and no indication of what the tool actually does beyond vague 'Multi-Agent Swarm' language. The server appears to be a stub implementation with no real capability.

• Document the output schema explicitly. Define what fields the response contains (e.g., handshake_contract_id, capability_granted, sla_latency_limit_ms, authorized_scopes, a2a_session_token, contract_proof_url) and their types.
• Rename tool to 'negotiate_agent_capability' or 'request_skill_access' to clearly signal that it negotiates capability contracts between agents, not a generic 'skill action'.
• Expand parameter description for 'query_payload' to specify format (JSON object? string? what fields?), constraints (max length?), and example structure. State whether it should contain agent IDs, capability names, or SLA requirements.
• Add error handling: document what happens if the target agent denies access, if SLA cannot be met, or if the requesting agent lacks permission. Return structured error responses with recovery guidance.
• Rewrite tool description to answer: What does it do? (Negotiate capability access between agents.) When to use it? (When one agent needs to request a capability from another.) What does it return? (A capability contract with SLA, scopes, and session token.)