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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool combines data but does not mention read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'comprehensive market analysis' includes (e.g., return structure, fields). It mentions 'probabilities' and 'trading activity' but lacks specifics on response format or error conditions, leaving an agent under-informed about expected results.

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 100%, with both 'slug' and 'include_trades' already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get comprehensive market analysis' and specifies components like 'probabilities, trading activity, and AI-friendly insights.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'Combines market data with recent trades,' which separates it from individual market data or trade history tools.

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 implies usage for when both market data and recent trades are needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like dome_market_price or dome_trade_history. There are no direct comparisons or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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