Visit the Black Market shack outside the Hall: today's three buyers, their descriptions and offers. One of them is an undercover agent. Read carefully.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "black_market_look"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the response (three buyers, descriptions, offers) plus a notable hazard (one undercover agent). It does not state whether this is purely read-only, whether looking has in-game consequences, or whether the roster is per-day/refreshable beyond the word 'today's'.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is visited and what it yields, followed by a single-line warning that genuinely affects how the agent should interpret the result. No filler.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: the location, the number of entries, the fields per entry, and a caveat. Only refresh/cooldown behaviour and any consequences of visiting are left unstated.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter language is present.
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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Visit the Black Market shack outside the Hall') and specifies the returned content: three buyers, their descriptions and offers. It does not explicitly name the natural counterpart black_market_sell, so an agent must infer the look-vs-sell split from the names alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is clearly a reconnaissance step before black_market_sell, and the 'Read carefully' warning hints at the undercover agent. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus black_market_sell, nor whether repeat visits are allowed or costly.
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.