cpu_get_my_listings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the wallet is the authenticated one, there is no wallet input or way to read another player, pagination follows nextCursor, prices are strings needing currency context, each row carries orderHash for cancellation, and map/Cell reads lack marketplace data. These are behavioral details well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through differentiation, pagination rules, price format, and cancellation data in a logical order. Every sentence carries operational value; there is no filler or redundancy. The length is justified by the number of critical behaviors an agent must know.

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 paginated authenticated listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything necessary: authentication scope, pagination mechanics, stopping condition, price representation, currency pairing, order cancellation, and the distinction from related reads. Nothing essential is missing, and the output schema supplies return-structure details.

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?

The schema already describes the cursor parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic detail by explaining that a page with fewer than 50 rows may still have another page, reinforcing both cursor reuse and the exact stopping condition. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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: 'Your own active Cell listings on the public NFT marketplace' and explicitly scopes it to 'the land you have put up for sale.' It differentiates itself from the sibling cpu_list_my_lots by clarifying that this is the land market, not resource lots, so an agent can immediately identify the correct tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it states that ordinary map and Cell reads carry no marketplace data and that this tool should be used for marketplace listings. It also names the direct alternative, cpu_list_my_lots, and explains the distinction. Pagination usage is fully specified with stop conditions based on nextCursor, not row counts.

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