create_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns an unsigned Seaport OrderComponents payload requiring wallet signing, specifies the authenticated submission endpoint, details the 1% seller-paid fee structure, and notes operator approval requirements. It covers the entire flow and important caveats.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and covers several critical operational details (signing, endpoint, fee, approvals). While it is longer than minimal, each sentence contributes meaningful information; the tips at the end are helpful rather than fluff. It is structured logically, moving from action to flow to prerequisites.

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 complexity (Seaport, signing, orderbook submission) and the lack of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly. It specifies the return payload, the exact submission endpoint, required approvals, and the fee structure. It also points to relevant sibling tools (get_valuation, get_name_details) for proper use. This is a complete operational guide.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the fee treatment relative to priceEth, explaining that the fee is 'baked into the order as a Seaport consideration item (seller-paid, not added on top).' This goes beyond the schema's generic description of 'what the seller receives before the 1% marketplace fee.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List an ENS name for sale on NameWhisper's marketplace via Seaport 1.6.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like make_offer, purchase_name, and cancel_listing. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'NW-native only' and listing on OpenSea separately. It recommends prerequisite actions ('Use approve_operator if needed', 'Use get_valuation first', 'Use get_name_details to confirm...'). This is comprehensive usage direction.

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