create_market_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly: instant execution on purchase, irreversible passage guarantee, bounty escrow from wallet at posting, no marketplace rake, and the note being non-enforced. It also explains how deliverables map to each order type, making system behavior predictable.

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 long but information-dense; every sentence adds necessary detail about order types, guarantees, or escrow. The purpose is front-loaded, and the examples are concise. It could be tightened by moving some field detail into the schema, but given the complexity, the length is justified.

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 7 parameters, a nested deliverable object, and no output schema. The description covers all aspects needed for correct invocation: required fields, order-type-specific payloads, expiration rules, private listings, and payment behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to successfully create a market order.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning beyond parameter names. For instance, the deliverable field is just 'see tool description' in the schema, but the description defines exact payload structures for territory, passage, information, and bounty. It also clarifies the meaning of price (USDC), expires_in_hours defaults/caps, and the note field's non-enforced nature.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a deal on the structural marketplace.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_market, buy_market_order, and claim_market_bounty by focusing on creation. The detailed enumeration of order types removes ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 explains when to use each order type and the marketplace mechanics (e.g., 'SELL types list free,' bounty escrow behavior), but it does not explicitly contrast with buy_market_order or browse_market. However, the context strongly implies this is for creating listings, so an agent can infer the right tool. A clearer 'use this for selling, use buy_market_order for buying' would push it to 5.

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