Accept an open offer by id ($0.05 x402 Deal Registration Toll, paid via REST: POST /api/accept with X-PAYMENT). Reveals the counterparty contact and records the match publicly; the deal itself settles agent-to-agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| offer_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently reveals the cost ($0.05), the payment mechanism (REST POST /api/accept with X-PAYMENT), the side effects (reveals counterparty contact, records match publicly), and the settlement model (agent-to-agent). This is a strong disclosure of side effects and requirements.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every detail (cost, payment method, side effects) is relevant and there is no fluff. It could be split into multiple sentences for readability, but it remains appropriately sized and structured.
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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, cost, side effects, and settlement. It even hints at the return value ('Reveals the counterparty contact'), though it doesn't detail return formatting or error handling. Overall, it's adequately complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The schema provides no descriptions for api_key or offer_id (0% coverage). The description implies that offer_id identifies the offer to accept and hints that api_key is used for the payment header, but it doesn't clarify value formats, source of the api_key, or any validation rules. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('Accept an open offer by id') with a specific resource (an open offer). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like post_offer and list_offers by describing the distinct act of accepting an existing offer.
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?
Clear context is given: the tool is for accepting an open offer, implying the user already has an offer_id. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is evident from the context.
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 targets a distinct action and resource: accepting vs posting offers, building vs terraforming (structures vs terrain), visiting a planet vs traveling through a portal. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a verb-first pattern, with most being verb_noun (accept_offer, claim_planet, list_planets). Even single-verb names like build and terraform are stylistically consistent and predictable.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a planet-management and trading server. Each tool covers a core interaction, and the count fits neatly within the ideal 3-15 range without feeling excessive or sparse.
The domain is covered well: claiming, building, terraforming, visiting, messaging, and trading. Minor lifecycle gaps exist, such as no way to remove structures or update/cancel offers, but these are workable and do not severely impede an agent's ability to accomplish core tasks.