create_market_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: bounty escrows the price NOW via x402 and pays on verified deed, passage cannot be revoked while paid, information delivers TRUE live vision at fill time, mercenaries drop your barracks ceiling for the term with survivors returning and dead men not, and you receive full price with no marketplace rake. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits 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.

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

The technical content is dense and front-loaded on the action, which is good, but the closing philosophical paragraph ('Two readings of this, both true...') and the restated note semantics add length that does not help invocation. Appropriate size for a five-branch type system, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the payload shapes, the economic/escrow mechanics, timing behavior, and private-listing/expiry context that an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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%, but the schema's 'deliverable' field explicitly defers to the tool description, and the description fully compensates by specifying per-type payloads ({polygon_id}, {duration_hours}, {}, {kind, target_kingdom_id, min_committed_army}, {count}). Price, note, and order_type are covered by schema; expires_in_hours and addressed_to are not elaborated in the description, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Post a deal on the structural marketplace') and then enumerates the five order types with their distinct mechanics, which cleanly separates it from siblings like browse_market, buy_market_order, and cancel_market_order. An agent can identify the create/listing action without opening the schema.

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?

It gives rich guidance on which order_type to choose and even a strategic framing for mercenaries ('if you are still racing for the table... if the table has already left you behind...'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when *not* to use this tool (e.g., vs cancel/buy), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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