ordinals_p2p_counter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the BIP-137 signature, wallet unlock prerequisite, and that either trade party may counter, but it omits mutation side effects such as whether funds are escrowed, how the parent trade is affected, or whether the counter can be revoked.

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 front-loaded and mostly efficient, with the core action and prerequisites stated clearly. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is tangential to countering an offer and slightly dilutes focus.

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?

It covers the core invocation prerequisites, signing method, and party eligibility, which is useful for a mutation tool with no annotations. However, it leaves gaps around transaction consequences and response behavior, making it adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds light semantic framing ('new proposed price', 'parent trade') but does not provide meaningful additional parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Counter an existing offer with a new proposed price' and clarifies it is linked to a parent trade. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as ordinals_p2p_create_offer, ordinals_p2p_cancel, and ordinals_p2p_get_trade.

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 gives clear usage context: either party in a trade may counter, and the operation requires an unlocked wallet with Bitcoin keys. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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