alpha_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 mentions that marketId is 'used for API mode when ALPHA_API_KEY is set', adding some behavioral context about authentication dependencies. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only/destructive, which are critical 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key parameters. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance into a second sentence for clarity.

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 is moderately complete for a read operation. It covers the main purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that marketAppId is 'always required' and that marketId provides 'richer API data', but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 fetches details for a single prediction market ('Fetch full details for a single Alpha Arcade prediction market'), specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'alpha_get_live_markets' (which likely lists multiple markets) by focusing on a single market, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 implies usage by stating 'Pass marketAppId... and optionally marketId... for richer API data', which suggests when to use the optional parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'alpha_get_live_markets' or 'alpha_get_reward_markets', leaving the context somewhat implied.

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