ordinals_p2p_create_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses BIP-137 signature authentication, the ownership-verification requirement, and the unlocked-wallet dependency. It's silent, however, on side effects such as whether the inscription is escrowed or locked, fees, and how the offer is later cancelled, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 and prerequisites are front-loaded and useful, but the middle sentence is verbose and the trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated advertising that doesn't help an agent call this tool. Minor trimming would improve it.

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?

Prerequisites and auth are covered, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: what the offer looks like after creation, whether the inscription is committed, any cost, and what is returned. An agent gets enough to attempt the call but not to reason about consequences.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the optional to_agent, asking_price_sats, and metadata fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 an inscription for sale on the P2P trade ledger', which situates it in the ordinals_p2p domain and distinguishes it from generic listing tools like ordinals_list_for_sale. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Prerequisites are stated (inscription owned by signing address, unlocked wallet with BTC keys), which implies when the tool is applicable, but there's no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like ordinals_list_for_sale_submit or ordinals_p2p_cancel. Usage must be inferred.

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