ordinals_p2p_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key operational fact that no wallet is required and outlines the response contents. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or that results are bounded by the limit parameter, which are relevant for a listing call.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with return contents and the no-wallet note following efficiently. The trailing tip is slightly promotional but short and does not obscure the main content.

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?

For a simple read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the absence of wallet/auth requirements. The only meaningful gap is pagination guidance for the limit parameter.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'Results per page (default 50)'. The description adds nothing about paging through results, so baseline 3 applies.

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: list active agents on the ordinals P2P trade ledger, and clarifies the returned fields (trade counts, last activity). It is distinguishable from siblings like ordinals_p2p_list_trades and ordinals_p2p_my_trades by operating on agents rather than trades, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Useful for discovering counterparties' implies the use case but gives no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives among the many ordinals_p2p_* and reputation_* tools. The 'Tip' points to earning_opportunities, which is a different workflow rather than a substitute for this call.

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