tab_match_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auth is optional (works without a key) and returns a concrete shape of the response. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by return shape, an example, and auth notes. Every section provides distinct value with little redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the return structure and giving a sample invocation. It also clarifies auth requirements. Minor omissions like error behavior or what happens when a match is not found are acceptable for a simple read-only market query tool.

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%, and the schema already explains the role of sport, competition, match, and jurisdiction. The description supplements this with a concrete AFL example, but the example mostly echoes the schema's existing parameter documentation rather than adding substantially new semantics.

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 resource: markets, selections, and prices for one match, and frames it as a leaner alternative to the full match object. This differentiates it from sibling tools like tab_match without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It explicitly scopes the tool to a single match and contrasts it with the fuller match object, giving agents a clear decision signal. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the 'leaner than the full match object' phrase gives enough context for selection.

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