Comunio MCP

Place a bid

place_bid

Bid for a market player. Your money is committed until the next transfer round, but you can change or withdraw the bid. Check credit to avoid rejection.

Instructions

Bid for a player on the market.

This commits the manager's money. Confirm the player and the amount with the user before calling it, and say what they would have left.

The bid does not take effect straight away: it waits for the next transfer round, which get_market reports as closes_at. Until then it can be changed with change_bid or pulled with withdraw_bid.

Sizing the bid: compare against credit from get_offers, not budget from get_account — the league's credit factor makes them different numbers. Comunio's credit does not subtract bids already outstanding, so check credit_committed in the result for what is already promised. What players actually sell for is in get_transfers; quoted_price is only an asking price.

The amount is not checked against credit here. Comunio enforces its own limit and answers "Credit exceeded", so a bid it would accept is never refused by this tool. Refused before anything is sent only if the player is not on the market or is one of the manager's own listings.

Check ok and message in the result. Comunio can report overall success while rejecting the bid itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`price`	Yes
`player_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether this particular bid was accepted by Comunio
`price`	Yes	Amount bid, in euros
`player`	No	That player's name
`message`	No	Comunio's reason, when it gives one
`offer_id`	No	The offer Comunio created. Needed to change or withdraw it.
`player_id`	Yes	Player the bid is for
`credit_after`	No	Spending power left if every open bid wins, in euros. Accounts for the other bids, which Comunio's own `credit` figure does not.
`credit_committed`	No	Already tied up in the manager's other open bids, in euros
`applied_immediately`	Yes	False for a bid: it waits for the transfer round and can be withdrawn

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds essential behaviors beyond that: it commits the manager's money, takes effect only at the next transfer round, does not check credit locally, can be refused only for market/ownership reasons, and can return overall success while the bid itself is rejected. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, the description is dense and front-loaded with the most important warning: 'This commits the manager's money.' Every paragraph earns its place by covering a distinct operational concern: confirmation, timing, credit semantics, refusal conditions, and result interpretation. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a financial, delayed-effect mutation with two parameters and meaningful failure modes, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, timing, related tools, credit nuances, refusal conditions, and result checking. It even documents the tricky 'Comunio reports success while rejecting the bid' case, so an agent can handle the full call lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter titles. It does: price is the bid amount, not checked against credit, and should be sized against credit; player_id is the player being bid on and is validated against market availability and own listings. It could be even more explicit about units or currency, but the provided guidance is sufficient for a confident call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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: 'Bid for a player on the market.' It clearly distinguishes placing a bid from the sibling operations by explaining that the bid waits for the next transfer round and can later be changed with change_bid or withdrawn with withdraw_bid. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong contextual guidance: confirm with the user before calling, size the bid against credit from get_offers rather than budget from get_account, and check ok/message afterward. It also mentions alternatives (change_bid, withdraw_bid) for later stages, but it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use condition for this tool versus an alternative bidding action. Still, the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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