trade_add_zeny

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers only one clause. It does not say whether the player must own that much zeny, whether the amount is validated or capped, whether re-calling overwrites the offer, or whether a lock is required — all material for a mutation in a trade lifecycle.

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 short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a state-mutating trade tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, this is far too thin. It omits preconditions, failure modes, and interaction with trade_lock/trade_commit, leaving the agent to guess the operating context.

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% for the single 'amount' parameter, so the description must compensate; 'zeny (GP)' does clarify the unit/currency being added, which is real added value. It still omits valid ranges (positive only? bounded by player's funds?) and whether the value is absolute or incremental.

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 (Add) and resource (zeny/GP) with the target context (the trade offer), which implicitly separates it from trade_add_item. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the surrounding trade flow, but an agent can tell what it mutates.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (an open trade session), and no indication of how it relates to siblings like trade_lock, trade_commit, or trade_cancel. The agent must infer the trade sequence entirely from other tools.

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