ecash_marketplace_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return list and fields but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, sorting, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. The absence of side effects is implied by 'browse' but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It delivers the purpose and return details in two sentences.

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 simple browsing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return fields. However, it lacks details like ordering and pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on how limit affects the returned list.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('open jobs in the ECASH marketplace'), and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like ecash_get_job which likely targets a specific job. It also specifies the return content (descriptions, amounts, deadlines).

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 a use case for finding available jobs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as ecash_get_job or ecash_find_agents. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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