Get a Manifold market by id or slug

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns current probability, pool, and resolution, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, missing market behavior). No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences: first states output and key attributes, second states input options. No redundant words, front-loaded with 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 simple input schema (two optional parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior adequately. Could mention return format or error cases, but not essential for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for id and slug. The description adds value by specifying that the user should provide 'either' one, implying mutual exclusivity and clarifying the use of slug as 'the part after /<user>/'. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves 'full detail for a single market' including specific attributes (probability, pool, resolution), and distinguishes from sibling tools like manifold_list_markets by focusing on a single market identifier.

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 tells how to identify a market (by id or slug) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., search_markets for finding, bets for user positions). Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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