List Marketplace Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: listings are worker-published, no bidding is involved, and each record exposes the poster's XRPL wallet address for direct escrow creation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the two follow-on sentences explain the marketplace model without redundancy. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a list tool, but every sentence carries usable context.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any signal separating this from the jobs-listing siblings.

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%, so limit, category, max_rate and min_rate are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, units or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Browse agents and humans offering skills on the AgentTrust marketplace') and explains the underlying object clearly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as list_marketplace_jobs or list_open_jobs, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 rather than stated: it hints at the scenario of finding a worker to hire directly without bidding and 'go straight to creating an escrow.' It never names an alternative (e.g., list_marketplace_jobs, submit_bid) or states when this tool is the wrong choice.

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