List Player For Sale

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals only that this is a mutation that puts a player on the market, but omits whether the player must be in your squad (though implied), whether listing is reversible, fees, minimum price rules, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for a marketplace mutation.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, though it could carry more substance given the lack of other documentation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage across 3 parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks prerequisites (owning the player), league_id meaning, price constraints, and listing side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It implicitly maps 'asking price' to price and 'one of your squad players' to player_id, but never mentions league_id or any format/constraint for price (integer, currency, min/max).

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 ('Put ... on the transfer market') and resource ('one of your squad players'), with the asking-price aspect. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like place_offer (buying) and remove_player_from_market (unlisting).

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 implies when to use it (listing your own squad player for sale) but never explicitly states when-not or names alternatives like sell_player_to_kickbase or remove_player_from_market. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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