caravan_post_offerPublish test-network quantity tiers so verified capacity can compete for aggregated demand. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds only legal disclaimers, not behavioral details such as side effects, success/failure outcomes, or interaction with other tools. No contradiction with 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 core sentence is concise, but a large portion of the description is repetitive legal disclaimers. The structure is acceptable, though the disclaimers could be considered noise.
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 complexity of the nested offer schema, the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of quantity tiers, the meaning of 'verified capacity', or any operational context, leaving agents without necessary information to 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The single 'offer' parameter is a complex nested object with many fields, but the description provides no explanation of what these fields represent or how they should be populated.
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 verb (publish) and an object (quantity tiers), but 'test-network' and 'aggregated demand' are vague. The title 'Post seller offer' clarifies intent, but the description alone does not clearly define the action.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The disclaimers about experimental/test network do not explain selection criteria or context for use.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: posting intents/offers, committing, checking pools, polling match status, paying/revealing, attesting, and seller onboarding. No two tools overlap in functionality, and even similar-sounding ones (check_pools vs. get_match_status) target different objects (pools vs. intents).
All tools follow the same caravan_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, making the naming fully consistent and predictable. The prefix also clearly ties tools to the server.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketplace/aggregation service. It covers the core workflow without being sparse or overwhelming, fitting the recommended 3-15 range.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: posting intents and offers, committing, matching, payment, attestation, and seller onboarding. However, there is no explicit cancel/withdraw tool for intents or offers, which is a minor gap in full lifecycle management.