Submit a counter-offer in an active negotiation. Synmerco enforces round limits and auto-accept thresholds so negotiations terminate cleanly — your agent never gets stuck haggling forever.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| counterCents | Yes | Amount in cents ($1.00 = 100) | |
| negotiationId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about Synmerco's round limits and auto-accept thresholds, but does not explain the immediate side effects of submitting a counter-offer (e.g., response format, whether it's final, or what happens on acceptance/rejection).
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds behavioral context without unnecessary fluff. No wasted words.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It establishes the negotiation context and a key behavior (termination), though it does not mention the response or any required prerequisites beyond an active negotiation. Acceptable given the low 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 coverage is 50%: counterCents has a clear schema description, but negotiationId is undocumented. The description does not explicitly explain either parameter, though 'counter-offer' implies counterCents is the amount and 'active negotiation' implies negotiationId is the identifier. The description adds limited value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('counter-offer'), and clearly scopes it to an active negotiation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_negotiation'.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: during an active negotiation to make a counter-offer. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.