Ask a nearby player to trade.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "trade_request"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the request/ask nature and proximity requirement, but does not explain what makes the action destructive or how the trade proceeds; it does not contradict the annotations.
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 with no redundant wording. Its brevity suits a simple action tool, even though more content is needed 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 one-parameter trade-initiation tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves out the trade flow and parameter details, but the annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists to explain.
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 0% for the sole required 'name' parameter. The description implies it identifies the nearby player, but does not specify format, matching behavior, or that the named player must be in range.
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?
States a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('trade') and adds the proximity condition ('nearby player'). It implies initiating a trade rather than accepting one, but does not explicitly differentiate from trade_accept, trade_add, or trade_confirm.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only contextual constraint is 'nearby player'; an agent must infer that this initiates a trade and that sibling tools handle acceptance or completion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.