Check pending trade deals from other civilizations, showing what each offers and wants in return, so you can accept or reject them.
Check for pending trade deal offers from other civilizations.
Shows what each civ is offering and what they want in return.
Use respond_to_trade to accept or reject.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Check' is consistent. It adds no additional behavioral insights beyond what annotations provide, such as potential side effects or authorization needs. No contradiction.
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 three sentences, starting with the core purpose, then detailing what it shows, and finally directing to a sibling tool. Every sentence is essential and concise.
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 no parameters and an output schema (stated in context), the description adequately covers the tool's function without needing return value details. It explains the displayed information, making it complete for its complexity.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Check' and resource 'pending trade deal offers from other civilizations,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_trade_options' or 'respond_to_trade.' It specifies the content shown (offers and demands).
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 instructs to use 'respond_to_trade' to accept or reject, providing a direct next step. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or clarify when to use this over other trade-related tools like 'propose_trade' or 'get_trade_routes.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.