付费调用技能

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

The annotations already indicate mutation and external effects, but the description adds charging on success, the max_price cap, idempotency-key reuse rules after uncertain outcomes, test-mode semantics, and the fact that arguments may be forwarded to external parties. This goes well beyond the structured metadata and matches the annotations without contradicting them.

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 text is dense but every clause adds operational value: pricing, cap, test mode, idempotency, external exposure, and pre-inspection tip. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately covers the most important constraint. The paragraph-style packing with semicolons is efficient but could be lightly restructured for scannability.

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 paid, externally observable invocation, the description covers the critical operational caveats: authorization, pricing cap, idempotent retry, test funds, and data exposure. It does not mention what a successful call returns nor point to market.receipt for verification, which is a small gap given the sibling list and absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains max_price_micros as a mandatory cap with unit conversion, defines idempotency_key reuse semantics, and warns that arguments may be exposed externally. skill_id and the exact shape of arguments are left implicit, but they are skill-specific and reasonably inferable.

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 action and resource: 'Invoke a skill authorized by the user.' It clearly distinguishes this from read-only siblings by noting execution charges the wallet, and it points to market.describe as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast itself with each sibling, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 gives concrete conditions: only for user-authorized skills, review market.describe first, external skills may receive arguments, and test mode uses simulated funds. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use or name an alternative for execution, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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