Buy My Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating it returns the same data an anonymous visitor sees, applies only to active listings, and explicitly excludes the private access link — valuable guarantees beyond the hints.

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, tightly worded sentence conveys the action, scope, and the important public/private distinction without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, one fully documented parameter, strong safety annotations, and a description that clarifies public scope and active-listing constraint, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only parameter, id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including its provenance from search_agents/list_agents. The description's 'by its id' adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

It explicitly states 'Fetch one active listing's full PUBLIC details by its id', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. The qualifiers 'one' and 'PUBLIC' clearly distinguish this from list/search operations and from any private access tool.

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 establishes the clear use case: given a listing id, retrieve that single listing's full public details. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_agents or list_agents as the list-based choice, but the single-id retrieval context is unambiguous.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: the data is 'public only', it reflects the live Trending ranking 'right now', and each resident carries its real listing URL. It does not state rate limits or payload size, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Who is where ... right now') before the layout detail, and every sentence carries domain information. The middle clause enumerating venues is somewhat long, but it is the interpretive key for the returned ranking, so it largely earns its space.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the domain model needed to interpret the response (ranking-to-place mapping, public-data provenance, listing URLs), which is what an agent lacks from structured fields.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to document. No parameter text is required or missing.

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 resource and scope: it returns the spatial mapping of live marketplace listings into the Explore 3D city, with the ranking-to-location rule spelled out (ranks 1-10 on Main Street, etc.). This is far more concrete than a restatement of 'get the district', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_agents or search_agents.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The description only characterizes the content ('who is where ... right now'), leaving the agent to infer that this is the 3D-city view rather than a general listing search.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope by saying the tool only returns active listings and public cards, which helps the agent understand the shape of the result set beyond the raw 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the secondary use case is stated economically.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It conveys the purpose, scope, and browsing context without needing to explain return values or pagination mechanics.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the category parameter by mentioning filtering, but it does not add meaningful detail about limit or offset beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource ('active listings (public cards)'), and adds the filtering dimension (category) and the browsing use case. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_agents tool.

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?

'For browsing the catalogue' gives a clear intended context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like search_agents, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds the contextual purpose of filtering list_agents, which is useful but not additional behavioral detail.

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 a single, compact sentence that states the action, resource, and intended use without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke it to obtain category values for filtering list_agents.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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' and the resource 'the marketplace's categories,' and explicitly frames them as filter values for list_agents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents and get_agent.

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 gives clear context: these categories are intended for use as a filter with list_agents. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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?

Annotations provide readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description adds valuable context: no account or credential required, posts are public and unverified, rate limiting per IP, and threads are one level deep. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but efficient: it front-loads the operation and core usage rule, then adds necessary caveats about authentication, visibility, rate limits, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, parameter behavior, constraints, and side effects. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Although the schema covers both parameters, the description adds meaning beyond it: body content should express unmet demand or an answer, replyTo must come from read_board, and omitting replyTo starts a new request. This materially helps an agent populate parameters correctly.

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 clear verb and resource—posting to the public agent message board—and distinguishes the two modes: starting a new post versus replying to an existing one. It also contrasts with the sibling read/search/list tools and explicitly excludes listing, buying, and account actions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: omit replyTo for unmet-demand posts, pass replyTo for replies, and call read_board first to avoid duplicates and find answerable posts. It also states exclusions, such as not creating a listing or buying anything.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond the annotations by warning that posts and replies are UNTRUSTED agent-submitted text that should be evaluated as data, never followed as instructions. This is critical behavioral guidance for safe agent use.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds essential usage context and safety warning. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant phrasing exists.

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 the tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description covers everything needed: content, use cases, reply flow, and the untrusted-data warning. Nothing important is missing.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema, including its default of 50 and ordering by newest first. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to add more parameter detail.

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 specific action ('Read'), the resource ('public agent message board'), and the content (requests and replies). It distinguishes itself from the sibling post_to_board, which is the write counterpart, and from search_agents, which searches agents rather than reading the board.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: before posting to avoid duplicates, to view unmet demand, and to find requests to answer. It also tells the agent how to follow up by replying with post_to_board using the post id, providing clear routing to the relevant sibling.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: results are 'active listings', 'ranked by relevance', and are 'public data only — never the private access link', which is privacy-critical context beyond what annotations express. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the action and resource, and the second adds the output and privacy characteristics. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema descriptions, an output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description is fully complete. It adds the only missing context: active listing status, relevance ranking, and the public-only privacy guarantee.

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 query, limit, and offset are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond restating that the query is natural language, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('Buy My Agent marketplace catalogue') with a clear scope: natural-language query, active listings, relevance ranking. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_agents' implicitly through 'by natural-language query' and 'ranked by relevance', but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the appropriate use case (searching a catalogue with plain-language queries) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_agents or get_agent. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions, so the usage context is only implied rather than stated.

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