browse_market

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It richly discloses domain guarantees—system execution/verification, money guarantee, atomic territory transfer, non-revocable passage, true-state information delivery, escrowed bounty, and mercenary hiring mechanics—but does not state that browsing is read-only, whether permissions are needed, or how results are returned.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then explains the order-type vocabulary. The content is dense and relevant, but it is one long unbroken paragraph where a short bulleted list would be easier to scan, and some game-flavored phrasing is not strictly minimal.

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?

For a one-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description supplies the domain vocabulary needed to use the order_type filter, but it never states that the result is a list of available orders or what fields each listing contains. That missing return-shape context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and order_type already has an enum, but the description goes far beyond the schema's 'Filter by order type' by defining each enum value: territory, passage, information, bounty, and mercenaries. It explains atomicity, non-revocability, escrow, and the bounty/mercenary distinction, giving the agent the semantic detail needed to choose a filter correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('marketplace of STRUCTURAL deals'), so the agent knows this is a viewing/listing tool rather than a transaction tool. It implicitly separates itself from create_market_order and buy_market_order through the verb, but never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 only actionable guidance is 'Filter with order_type.' There is no when-to-use or when-not statement, no mention of alternatives like buy_market_order or my_market_orders, and no prerequisite context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb 'Browse'.

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