cpu_get_my_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well. It explains pagination behavior (use nextCursor, stop only when nextCursor is null, never rely on row count), the string-typed base-unit amounts with currency decimals, nullable tokenId for trait/collection offers, and the presence of cancelable orderHash. These details go far beyond the schema and meaningfully shape how an agent should interpret results.

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 minimal but is well-organized and front-loaded with purpose before moving to pagination and data-format caveats. Every section carries necessary warnings, though some cursor mechanics are repeated from the schema description. The structure earns a high score because each topic is distinct and useful.

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 one-parameter read-only paginated query, the description covers the tool's purpose, its relation to a sibling tool, the exact authentication model, pagination termination rules, number formatting, and cancellation capability. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe every field, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the single cursor parameter thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance beyond the schema by warning that a page with fewer than 50 rows may still have another page and that completion must be determined solely by nextCursor. That is a valuable addition that prevents a common pagination mistake.

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 names a specific resource and scope: active offers YOU made on the public NFT marketplace, specifically bids on land owned by others. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly saying bids received on your Cells belong in cpu_get_my_offers_received. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: 'For bids other players made on your Cells, call cpu_get_my_offers_received instead.' It also notes that ordinary map and Cell reads carry no marketplace data, so an agent knows to request this tool rather than generic read endpoints. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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