get_my_otc_offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether filled/cancelled/expired offers are included, whether results are paginated or sorted, or what the response shape looks like — significant gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but omits filtering scope (active vs. historical offers), pagination, and its relationship to the broader OTC offer listing tool, which an agent would need to select 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single walletAddress parameter is already fully documented with its bech32 'addr1' format in the schema. The description only restates that the address identifies the offer creator, adding marginal semantic value.

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 and resource ('Get all OTC offers') plus the scope ('created by a specific wallet address'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_otc_offers (which presumably lists all offers) despite the name's 'my' framing, leaving the walletAddress-vs-authenticated-user distinction unexplained.

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 guidance on when to use this over get_otc_offers or get_otc_offer_by_id, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid wallet address. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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