MCP Predictive 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all markets'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get all markets in your watchlist with current prices.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, authentication) and usage guidelines. For a read operation with no structured data, it meets the minimum viable standard but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none. It implies the tool might rely on implicit context (e.g., user-specific watchlist), but this isn't a parameter issue. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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: 'Get all markets in your watchlist with current prices.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('markets in your watchlist'), and scope ('with current prices'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_markets' or 'track_market,' which might have overlapping functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a watchlist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'search_markets' (which might filter markets) or 'track_market' (which might add to a watchlist). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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