cpu_get_my_offers_received

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explains pagination semantics (cursor omission, nextCursor reuse, null termination, page size caveats), amount formatting as strings, nullable tokenId for trait/collection offers, and the presence of orderHash. It also clarifies that the wallet is the authenticated one and there is no wallet input.

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, with every sentence earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers sibling distinction, offer-kind semantics, pagination, amount formatting, and the acceptance-relevant orderHash without unnecessary filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers authentication context, pagination, data types, nullability, sibling alternatives, and the purpose of each relevant field, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already documents the cursor parameter at 100% coverage, the description adds significant operational meaning: omit cursor for first page, pass back the exact nextCursor, stop only when nextCursor is null, and never infer completion from row count. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading active offers received on the authenticated user's Cells from the public NFT marketplace. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling cpu_get_my_offers by explaining which tool covers offers you published yourself.

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 explicitly routes the user away to cpu_get_my_offers for self-published bids, and adds that ordinary map and Cell reads do not carry marketplace data, so this tool is the right place to query. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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