check_market_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the budget arithmetic uses the live market quote, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid ids, or any other side effects or requirements.

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 core purpose, and the second paragraph adds only essential differentiating detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the main purpose, parameter roles, and the key difference from check_transfer. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning prerequisites or validation behavior, but it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, but the description compensates by stating 'Both are player ids' and clarifying that out_id refers to the squad player and in_id refers to the market player. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail id formats or how to obtain valid ids.

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: 'Check a real transfer: one squad player out, one market player in.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_transfer by noting the incoming player's price and position come from the live market.

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 gives clear usage context by contrasting with check_transfer: this tool should be used when the incoming player's price and position should come from the live market rather than being hand-described. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools beyond this comparison, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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