buy_market_order

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden—and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses atomic execution, payment mechanics (x402), per-type behaviors (territory building tiers, passage expiration and one-grant limit, info snapshot delivery), a limitation (doesn't substantiate weak_point claims), and automatic refund on failure. Nothing is hidden, despite the operation's complexity.

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 information-dense, which fits the complexity, but it's structured as a long run-on paragraph with heavy use of dashes and parentheticals. While every sentence earns its place, the lack of formatting (bullets for the three order types) makes it difficult to scan quickly—an opportunity for improvement without cutting content.

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 tool with three order types, side effects, and no output schema, the description covers all bases: deal outcomes for each type, edge cases (seller loses tile/towers → refund), exclusions (bounties), and follow-up actions. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and understand the consequences even without backend docs.

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 schema already documents both parameters (api_key, order_id) adequately. The description enriches the order_id concept by explaining what kinds of orders exist and the deal lifecycle, but it doesn't—and doesn't need—to add syntax details. This meets the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 leads with a specific verb+object ('Buy a sell listing') and enumerates the three resource types (territory, passage, information) with distinct semantics for each. It explicitly distinguishes itself from claim_market_bounty ('Bounties are NOT bought'), allowing an agent to select it correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicit when-not guidance by calling out bounties as out of scope and naming the alternative tool (claim_market_bounty). It also references my_market_orders as a follow-up endpoint, giving the agent clear routing context for related operations.

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