t2000_agent_sell

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It comprehensively discloses: server-side probing, on-chain gasless signature, immediate listing on specified URLs, no fund spending, and detailed behavior for remove and catalog flags.

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 detailed but efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes needed context without redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but it's well-structured for a complex tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return behavior (probe failures per-check, catalog gate results). It addresses all key aspects: prerequisites, flags, side effects, and success indications, making it adequate for agent decision-making.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world effect of each parameter (e.g., catalog triggers MPP listing with re-probe and price cap), which is deeper than the schema's bare definitions.

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 purpose: listing an agent's x402 API endpoint on its public profile for pay-per-call. It specifies the action, resource (agent ID profile), and monetization mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling tools like t2000_agents which likely list or view agents.

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 explains when to use (to list an endpoint), prerequisites (requires Agent ID), and the process (live probe, on-chain signature). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear enough.

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