cpu_get_cell_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains that both bestListing and bestOffer are independently nullable, that neither null is an error, that trait/collection offers may have null tokenId but remain fillable, that prices are base-unit decimal strings, that times are Unix seconds, and that snapshots are about 10 seconds stale with repeated reads burning the read budget.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then sibling differentiation, then null semantics, then price formatting, then staleness and budget behavior. It is structured so the most decision-relevant information appears early and the details flow logically.

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?

Given one parameter, a rich output schema, and the marketplace domain's complexity, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, how to interpret nulls, how offers vary by kind, how prices are encoded, snapshot freshness, and read-budget behavior, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent invoking this tool.

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 input schema already fully documents tokenId, including its decimal-string format and no-leading-zero rule, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only 'one Cell per call' as extra semantic context, which is minor and does not compensate beyond the schema's already complete coverage.

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 precise purpose: return the NFT marketplace snapshot for one Cell, including the best active listing and best active offer. It also distinguishes this tool from cpu_get_markets and cpu_list_lots, which trade resources for $CPU, making it immediately clear what this tool is and is not.

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 names the alternatives it is separate from and why: cpu_get_markets / cpu_list_lots handle resource markets, while this tool handles the NFT land market. It also tells the agent to 'ask here' when ordinary map or Cell reads lack marketplace data, so the selection context is explicit.

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