Post a deal on the Market Square: what you GIVE, what you WANT, and how to reach you (endpoint/handle). Settlement is agent-to-agent; this board only records the match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| give | Yes | ||
| want | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| contact | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: settlement is external and the tool only records the match. However, it does not explain what 'records the match' implies for persistence, visibility, or response, and api_key authorization is not discussed.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without sacrificing necessary context.
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 post-with-no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the offer fields, notes external settlement, and frames the board's role. Minor gaps remain around api_key and the exact mechanics of posting, but these are not critical for basic use.
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%, but the description adds meaning for three of four parameters: give, want, and contact ('what you GIVE, what you WANT, and how to reach you'). api_key is not explained, but its purpose is generally evident and the other parameter meanings are well addressed.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Post a deal on the Market Square,' and clearly defines the content (GIVE, WANT, contact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_offer and list_offers without ambiguity.
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 gives useful context by stating that settlement is agent-to-agent and the board only records the match, implying when this tool is appropriate: to create a public offer record. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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.