Lists active diplomacy deals in Civilization V, showing participants, items, and turns remaining until each expires. Use before proposing trades; refuses if an incoming deal awaits response.
Diplomacy Overview current deals: who, items, turns remaining until each expires. Refuses if a trade is already on the scratch table (answer incoming_deal first). Does not construct or propose anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it declares the tool is non-mutating ('Does not construct or propose anything'), discloses a refusal precondition tied to the scratch table, and names the fields returned. It gives a solid behavioral picture, though it omits any note on permissions or freshness of the deal data.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core query stated first and the qualification/refusal behavior after. Every clause earns its place with no 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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (who, items, turns remaining). For a read-only, no-arg tool this is nearly complete; only the refusal-handling path could be fleshed out further.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to interpret and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter detail for a no-arg query.
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?
States a specific read action (listing current deals) on a specific resource, and enumerates the returned fields (who, items, turns remaining). The closing clause 'Does not construct or propose anything' explicitly separates it from sibling tools like propose_deal and negotiate_deal, so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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?
Explicitly names the precondition ('Refuses if a trade is already on the scratch table (answer incoming_deal first)'), routing the agent to the incoming_deal sibling. Clear context for use, though it doesn't distinguish itself from trade_catalog or the deal-proposal tools beyond the negative statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.