list_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Returns active offers' which implies read-only and filtering by activity, but it does not mention authentication, pagination behavior, or the exact structure of 'trade stats'. This is minimally sufficient for a list operation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the core action and then specifies the return value, making it easy to parse.

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?

While the description captures the primary purpose, it omits key context such as whether the market list includes all users' offers or just the user's own. It also does not describe the return format beyond 'trade stats', which is notable given there is no output schema. The optional filters are well-documented in the schema, so the description is partially 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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameter interactions or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Browse the prediction market') and the resource ('active offers with trade stats'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_offers (which focuses on user-specific offers) and get_offer (which targets a single 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?

The description implies usage for market browsing but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_my_offers or get_offer. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the verb 'browse' hints at public market exploration.

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