aeterna_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the barter constraint, the three-step workflow, and the catalog scope (100+ NYX modules + community). It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or failure modes, but the core exchange behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The final sentence about incentivizing AI agents is somewhat promotional, but the overall length is appropriate and every sentence conveys meaningful 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, an action enum with three modes, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level workflow but does not clarify which parameters are required for each action (e.g., offer needs code/name/language/description), leaving the agent to infer action-specific usage from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to re-document parameters. It adds workflow vocabulary ('catalog', 'offer', 'trade') that maps to the action enum, but does not explain action-specific parameter requirements, which remain a gap.

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 opens with 'AETERNA Module Exchange — a barter system for code' and explains that to get a module you must offer one of your own. This specific verb+resource framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on catalog browsing, offering, and trading modules.

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?

It states the core usage condition ('To get a module, you must offer one of your own') and outlines the workflow: browse catalog, offer, trade. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over exploration or messaging tools.

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