browse_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It richly explains the behavioral guarantees of the marketplace (system-executed deals, no trust needed) and the semantics of each order type, adding valuable context. However, it does not explicitly state that browsing is a read-only operation or disclose any potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 relatively long but front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers each order type. Every sentence contributes understanding, so it is efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the domain and parameter meaning thoroughly, but it does not describe the expected return format (e.g., a list of orders, availability, pagination). This gap leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the order_type enum by explaining each value (territory, passage, information, bounty) in detail, going beyond the schema's simple 'Filter by order type'. This helps the agent choose the correct filter.

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 verb 'browse' and the resource 'marketplace', and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_market_order or buy_market_order by focusing on viewing. It enumerates the order types with specific explanations, making the tool's purpose 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'browse' implies viewing, it does not say 'use this to see available orders before buying' or mention related tools like my_market_orders for viewing own orders. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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