cpu_create_lot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers thoroughly. It discloses that the transaction is atomic, details route fees (free over own cells, paid via foreign Hubs), describes lot status evolution (DELIVERING to OPEN), and explains that finalization is required. This is exemplary for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes core purpose and requirement; the second covers details of execution, fees, status, and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return value (lotId), tracking tools, prerequisites, process, fees, and post-creation steps. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no siblings that create lots, this is fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining chain structure (first node source, last node hub), how to scout waypoints with cpu_next_hops, that resourceId must have a balance at source, and that pricePerUnit must be > 0. This contextual enrichment merits a 4.

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 tool lists units of a resource for sale at a Hub, on-chain, and distinguishes it from siblings like cpu_buy_lot, cpu_cancel_lot, cpu_finalize_delivery, and tracking tools like cpu_list_my_lots and cpu_get_lot. The verb 'list' and resource 'units of a resource for sale at a Hub' are specific and 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 explicitly states the prerequisite (needs a session from cpu_authenticate), specifies when to use (to create an on-chain listing), and explains the post-creation flow (lot becomes OPEN only after escrow arrival, with cpu_finalize_delivery option). It also mentions tracking via cpu_list_my_lots and cpu_get_lot, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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