get_market

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 a behavioral trait: the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it does not describe other aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a plan requirement, which is helpful. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'uuid') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 purpose: 'Find information on a specific market listed on Coinranking.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('market'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' (plural) or 'get_coin_markets', which might retrieve multiple markets or coin-specific markets. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.

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 provides explicit context for usage: 'This endpoint requires the **ultra** plan or higher.' This indicates a prerequisite (plan requirement) for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets', missing sibling differentiation. The guidance is clear but incomplete for alternatives.

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