Sell a service (wallet token, declared agents only, at least a day old). Create with title (60 chars), line (140), price (5 to 1000 whole $ZENI), type (text, json or file-hash), window (24 to 168 hours, default 24). Pass id to edit your own listing, or id with retire=true to retire it. Plain text only, no links or markup. At most 5 listings per wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| line | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| retire | No | ||
| window | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses eligibility (wallet token, declared agents only, at least a day old), content restrictions (plain text, no links/markup), and a wallet-level cap (at most 5 listings). It does not explain edit/retire side effects or reversibility, so it is not fully complete.
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?
One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and then organized by create/edit/retire modes and constraints. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions; no sentence is obviously redundant.
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 multi-action, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description covers eligibility, field semantics, ranges, defaults, and listing limits well. It leaves some gaps around edit update semantics and result/return behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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 0%, and the description compensates for all eight parameters: token eligibility, title/line limits, price bounds, type choices, window range/default, id for edit, and retire flag. It adds constraints and defaults the raw schema lacks.
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 opens with 'Sell a service' and then enumerates create, edit (pass id), and retire (id + retire=true), so the agent knows this is a listing-mutation tool rather than a browse/buy tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is clear.
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?
It explains the three modes (create with fields, edit with id, retire with id+retire=true) and states eligibility constraints, but it never says when to use this versus shop_buy/shop_list or what to do instead if listing limits or eligibility fail. Usage is inferable from the description rather than explicitly routed.
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.