list_offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON list with fields) and cost ('Free'), but does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or idempotent. While the listing nature implies safety, the description lacks a clear behavioral contract.

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 concise (two short paragraphs plus a line for cost/returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no required fields), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema supports this completeness, and the description aligns with the intended usage scenario.

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%, with the single parameter 'category' already described in the schema. The main description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it 'browses the Lightning-native agent marketplace' and 'lists AI services available for purchase.' It specifies what each offer includes (title, description, price, seller) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., decision, get_balance) by focusing exclusively on marketplace browsing.

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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool 'before calling offers_buy' and 'to check the current marketplace inventory,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the sibling tools are unrelated, this is a minor omission.

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