null_market_delistRelays a fresh (<10 min) self-issued card whose claim is {purpose:"delist"} - a public listing card can never be replayed to delist someone. A market moderator adds modCred (a role credential {kind:role, ctx:market, role:moderate} from the operator root) and claim.target to remove another listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | ||
| modCred | 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important constraints: the card must be fresh (<10 min), self-issued, and a public listing card cannot be replayed. It also mentions the moderator credential requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or the outcome of the relay operation, leaving ambiguity about what happens after removal.
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, dense but efficient. It front-loads the primary action and then adds necessary constraints and prerequisites. No unnecessary words, and the technical details are compact yet informative.
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 tool with no annotations and minimal schema, the description covers the essential context: the card format, freshness, moderator credential, and the replay prevention rule. It lacks explicit mention of what the relay returns or any side effects, but given the complexity of the operation, it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'card' parameter (a fresh self-issued delist card) and 'modCred' (a role credential from the operator root with specific fields). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.
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 action: it relays a fresh self-issued card with a delist claim to remove a listing. It distinguishes from siblings like null_market_list and null_market_listings by focusing on the removal/delist operation and explicitly notes that a public listing card cannot be replayed for delisting, which is a unique constraint.
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 provides clear context: it is for market moderators to remove another listing, and it specifies the required credentials (modCred) and the freshness requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the moderator role and replay restriction imply the intended use case.
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.