Transfer market

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only: fetches current state and changes nothing,' which aligns with and reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains key behavioral aspects of the data: closes_at timing, from_computer, is_mine, and trend semantics. This adds value beyond the annotation by clarifying what the returned fields mean and the timing constraint for bids.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by a compact explanation of field semantics, and ends with a clear read-only note. Every sentence adds value, and the use of backticks for field names improves scannability. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how to interpret the data, the timing constraint, and the read-only nature. It also provides a cross-reference to get_account for budget, which is useful for an agent deciding how to act on the data. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining the meaning of key fields in the response (closes_at, from_computer, is_mine, trend, quoted_price, recommended_price). Since there are no parameters to document, the description's focus on output semantics is appropriate and valuable.

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: retrieving every player currently for sale, with prices, price trend, and seller. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transfers and get_offers by focusing on the market listings, and the title 'Transfer market' reinforces the resource. The verb 'Get' is specific and the scope is 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 clear context on when to use this tool: to view the market and judge asking prices. It references get_account for budget context, which helps an agent understand a related workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like get_transfers or get_offers, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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