wallet_marketplace_attempts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: keys are 'locally retained' and the call 'never retries or pays', establishing a side-effect-free read. It still doesn't state what authentication is concretely required or what happens on a pagination/empty result, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the safety constraint after a semicolon. No filler, though the phrasing is dense enough that it reads slightly compressed.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and its non-destructive nature. Only the return shape (key count, format) is left unstated, which is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete by construction and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add or omit.

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 verb ('List') and a precise resource ('locally retained Marketplace quote and payment keys'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like wallet_recover_marketplace. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the scope is 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?

'for payer-authenticated recovery' implies the context in which to reach for it, and 'never retries or pays' rules out using it as an action tool. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. wallet_recover_marketplace) or states when NOT to use it, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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