nft_marketplace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses some return content but leaves a serious ambiguity: 'Buy and sell without waiting for a counterparty' implies transaction execution, yet the only parameter is an optional pool_id and no buy/sell parameters exist. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, nor any side effects or permissions.

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 compact at three sentences and front-loads the core concept and return value. Some phrasing ('arcade-style', 'without waiting for a counterparty') is promotional and not essential, but it remains readable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially explains the list response but not the pool-detail response structure. The biggest gap is the unresolved difference between returning market data and actually enabling buy/sell, which is critical for an agent deciding whether this tool can fulfill a trade request.

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?

The single optional pool parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Optional pool_id for detail, price and recent trades'), so the description adds little beyond that baseline. It does tie the tool's output to pool details but does not explain parameter format or behavior.

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 identifies the tool as an NFT AMM marketplace and specifies a concrete result: 'Returns live pools with floor price, curve type and how many NFTs are in each.' It uses the bonding-curve concept to signal differentiation from fixed-listing marketplaces, though it does not name a sibling tool 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling tools such as nft_trade_how_to or night_market. The 'Buy and sell without waiting for a counterparty' line implies the usage context, but alternatives and exclusions are left to inference.

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