publish_listing

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: idempotency, requirement for a running HTTP server with x402 payments, wallet requirement, and that it returns a signed listing. It omits error scenarios or validation details but covers the main behavioral aspects.

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 concise (5 sentences, ~100 words) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides necessary context without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, idempotency, and return type. It does not detail error handling or examples but is sufficiently complete for selection and basic usage.

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 86%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the endpoint must be public and accept x402 payments, which goes beyond the schema. It also hints at agent_id being implicit, adding context for parameters.

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 publishes or updates a listing on a specific registry, advertising a capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hire_agent or search_agents by specifying the action and resource.

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 provides prerequisites and idempotency details, but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus the sibling update_listing. While it mentions 'or update', the existence of a separate update_listing tool creates ambiguity.

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