Place an order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most important and non-obvious trait: 'No money moves; the price is frozen' – preventing the agent from assuming this is a charging operation. It also surfaces a concrete validation constraint (x402 minimum 0.50 USDC). It omits order expiry, idempotency, and what the call returns, which are meaningful gaps for a state-creating mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the money semantics, then the sequencing and the constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 workflow and payment model are well covered, which is the hardest part for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool. However, with three undocumented parameters and no described return value, an agent still cannot confidently construct the call or know what it receives back.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters – service_id, quantity, and requirements go entirely unexplained in both places. The agent knows the minimum order total but not that quantity multiplies a unit price or what 'requirements' should contain. The description should compensate for the coverage gap and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Place an order for a service') and immediately separates itself from the payment step by naming agoreum_pay_order as the follow-up. An agent can distinguish this from agoreum_pay_order, agoreum_start_order, and agoreum_preview_payment without opening any schema.

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 sentence 'Pay it next with agoreum_pay_order' gives the agent the correct workflow sequence and the sibling to call afterwards, which is exactly the guidance needed here. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. must the service already be selected via agoreum_search_services, must the wallet be funded).

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