Character market orders

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the best-price/undercut comparison and the magnitude of the gap, plus escrow being reported. It stops short of stating cost/latency of the competition check other than what the schema notes, but the added behavioral detail is substantive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary payload and appends the optional history mode, with no filler. Slightly dense with em-dash clauses, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields precisely (names, remaining volume, expiry, escrow, competition status) and flags the optional history. Combined with fully-documented parameters and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured form, establishing the baseline of 3. The description hints at what include_history and check_competition do ('recent order history', 'best price... or undercut') but adds no formatting or defaults 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?

States a specific resource (a character's open market orders) and enumerates the payload — item/location names, remaining volume, expiry, escrow — plus derived undercut/outbid status. An agent can distinguish this from market_prices (price lookups) and assets (owned stock) from the content alone, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the content description — you'd call this to see your own open sell/buy orders. The optional history and competition modes are mentioned, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against market_prices, wallet, or assets, and no stated prerequisites beyond the schema's pointer to character_select.

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