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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return shape, the fact that probability is rounded, that outcome is conditional on resolution, and that the call is free (implying cost tiers exist elsewhere), but it is silent on permissions, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether data is live or cached.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase (field list, 'rounded', 'when resolved', 'Free') carries information. Slightly clipped to the point of terseness, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description usefully previews returned fields, which reduces the need for a return-value section. It remains incomplete on the one thing that actually gates correct invocation: what identifier to supply and what happens with an invalid or unresolved market.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — the id parameter is never mentioned. It is unclear whether the id is a market UUID, a question id, or a slug, which matters given siblings like read_my_question and market_summary.

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 resource — a summary of one Vatic market — and enumerates what the summary contains (question, status, rounded probability, players, outcome when resolved). That is concrete enough to distinguish it from feed-style siblings like live_markets or recent_resolutions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with market_summary or live_market.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick this over market_summary, live_market, or market_history, all of which sound adjacent. The only usage signal is implicit — that it needs a single identifier — so an agent must guess from names alone.

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