marketplace_charge

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write. The description simply says 'create', which aligns with the annotations but adds no additional behavioral context, such as what side effects occur (e.g., charging a wallet, applying funds) or whether the operation is reversible. Essential transparency for a mutation tool is missing.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It's appropriately short for a simple action, though given the tool has 10 parameters, a bit more context could be beneficial without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description. It doesn't explain the domain context (what constitutes a wallet charge), how parameters relate to each other, what the response format is, or any prerequisites. For an operation with this complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently without external knowledge.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate given the schema's completeness. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new wallet charge'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketplace_delete_charge and marketplace_get_charges. However, it's terse and doesn't elaborate on what a 'wallet charge' means in this marketplace context, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the create counterpart to marketplace_get_charges or how to handle prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context from the name alone.

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