market_abuse_check

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It states it returns a JSON assessment with regulation refs and actions, implying a read-only check. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention auth requirements beyond optional api_key.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, arguments, return type. No wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose.

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 the tool's nature as a regulatory check with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks examples or error handling but is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: query as regulation ref/identifier/input data, and api_key for Pro+ tier. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's empty defaults.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's domain as MiCA Title VI market abuse rules, listing specific types (insider dealing, market manipulation). Differentiates from sibling tools like aml_overlay or check_casp_authorisation by focusing on a specific regulation area.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for market abuse checks under MiCA, but lacks clear guidance on context or when-not-to-use.

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