make_offer

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it returns an unsigned EIP-712 payload for the caller to sign, requires WETH and an approval, includes a 1% fee, and is not cross-posted. It also explains the post-signing flow into the orderbook, providing transparency beyond a simple 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by essential return details, requirements, fee, and a practical tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload, signing process, prerequisites, and marketplace fee. It misses minor edge cases (e.g., unregistered names) but is otherwise well-rounded for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond context already captured. It does clarify that amountEth is in ETH and mentions the default currency WETH, but this mirrors schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 places an offer (bid) on a registered ENS name via Seaport 1.6, specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like purchase_name, create_listing, and accept_offer by focusing on the seller-side offer lifecycle.

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?

Provides a clear tip to use get_valuation first, and notes the offer is NW-native only, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives (e.g., purchase_name for immediate acquisition), though the purpose and sibling context imply this.

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