Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include price in payable currency, USD estimate, real stock status, and non-custodial purchase steps—useful behavioral context beyond a simple list. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a browse tool this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with a compelling hook and quickly lists the item types and filters. It's slightly verbose but every sentence contributes: purpose, scope, included data, and usage instruction. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 browse tool with six parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the item types, the fields returned, and the filtering options. It doesn't specify pagination or sorting, but for a catalog browse that's a minor omission. The description is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter (q, type, market, currency, max_price, availability) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description only references 'Filter with q, type, market, availability, currency and max_price' without adding syntax, examples, or additional meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose as a unified catalog for all purchasable items, listing specific categories (NFTs, pools, land, buildings, sponsorships). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly instructing to 'Start here instead of querying six separate systems,' which differentiates it from more specialized tools like catalog_product.

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 strong usage guidance: it says to start here for broad buying needs and lists the filterable dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a known product ID exists, catalog_product might be more direct), leaving some inference to the agent. The clear 'start here' directive still earns a high score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.