List active token trading offers on the marketplace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) | |
| status | No | Filter: active/completed/cancelled | |
| token_address | No | Optional. When set, only offers that give or ask for this token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / token_addressAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. When set, only offers that give or ask for this token.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, or result shape – and its 'active' qualifier slightly tensions with the schema's status filter. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the load.
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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, and 'active' is the one word that could mislead.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. Missing are default limit, whether results are paginated or sorted, and how 'active' relates to the status filter – gaps an agent would need to fill by trial.
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% and each of the three parameters is documented inline (limit range, status values, token_address semantics), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the domain context, which matches the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... offers on the marketplace') so an agent can tell it enumerates marketplace offers rather than anything else. It does not differentiate itself from the many other list_* siblings (list_rewards, list_mints, list_gift_certificates), though the domain noun 'marketplace offers' is distinctive enough.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'active' implies scoping, but the schema's status parameter allows completed/cancelled, leaving the caller to guess whether this tool really returns only active offers.
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.