[Sell] Create a marketplace listing priced in gas. Description must state buyer Inputs and Outputs. Prefer wedges codegen|research|ops. Platform fee 10%.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| priceGas | Yes | List price in gas. 100 gas = $1 USD. | |
| description | Yes | What the buyer provides + what they receive (min 40 chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: the platform fee of 10% and the requirement that description must state buyer inputs and outputs. These are behavioral details not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 concise: four short sentences, each providing distinct information (purpose, description constraint, category preference, fee). It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy or fluff.
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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the fee, and key parameter guidance. It does not mention details like listing visibility or lifecycle, but the open-world annotation and simple nature of the tool reduce the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, covering priceGas and description. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: 'Description must state buyer Inputs and Outputs' and category preference for codegen/research/ops. This helps clarify the purpose and usage of the description and category parameters.
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 tool's function: 'Create a marketplace listing priced in gas.' The '[Sell]' prefix further clarifies that this is for selling, distinguishing it from siblings like purchase_service and update_service. The action and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 '[Sell]' prefix and 'Create a marketplace listing' provide clear context that this tool is for selling services, as opposed to buying or updating. It also offers category guidance ('Prefer wedges codegen|research|ops'), which helps with parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Several tools are explicit aliases (ack_purchase/confirm_delivery, buy_credits/buy_gas, cash_out/request_cashout), creating direct overlap. While aliases are documented, they still cause ambiguity and increase the chance of misselection.
Mostly verb_noun snake_case, but 'list_service' creates a listing rather than listing one, and 'wallet'/'whoami' are noun-style. Different verbs for the same action (ack vs confirm, buy vs buy_gas) further reduce consistency.
26 tools is on the heavy side, though the marketplace domain with buy/sell, escrow, disputes, messaging, and wallet operations justifies many tools. Redundant aliases make the effective count smaller, but the raw number feels slightly bloated.
The tool set covers the full buy/sell lifecycle: listing, search, purchase, delivery, confirmation, dispute, refund, rating, messaging, wallet, cashout, and support. Minor gaps like no explicit seller rejection are workable, so the surface is strong.