marketplace_list_api_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'List all your API keys' but does not disclose whether the response includes full key secrets or just metadata, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or error scenarios. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses sensitive API key information.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional filtering. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response contains or any relevant behavior. It does not mention return format, whether API keys are masked, or any limits (e.g., pagination). For a list operation, this is incomplete. Even though the tool is simple, the lack of output schema makes this description under-specified.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (toolId: 'Filter by specific tool ID (optional)', userAddress: 'Your wallet address'), with 100% coverage. The description adds slight clarity by linking toolId to 'specific tool or all tools' and linking userAddress to 'your API keys', but does not significantly exceed the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 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 tool lists API keys, with an optional tool filter ('for a specific tool or all tools'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like marketplace_create_api_key and marketplace_revoke_api_key, which perform different actions. The verb 'List' and the resource 'your API keys' are specific and 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 makes it clear this is for retrieving/listing keys, which is distinct from creation, revocation, or rotation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The intended use is evident from the context and sibling tool names, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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