alpha_get_reward_markets

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 discloses the authentication requirement (ALPHA_API_KEY) and hints at pagination through the parameter 'itemsPerPage', but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the key is missing. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete 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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key differentiator, the second adds authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and clear.

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 provides purpose, authentication, and sibling comparison, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. It is adequate for a read-only tool with simple parameters but could be more complete to fully guide an agent without structured data.

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 both parameters (network with enum and default, itemsPerPage with default). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining network implications or pagination behavior, meeting the baseline for 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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Alpha Arcade markets with liquidity rewards'), specifying the exact data returned (totalRewards, rewardsPaidOut, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'alpha_get_live_markets' by noting the same shape but with added reward info, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 clear context by mentioning the requirement for ALPHA_API_KEY and comparing to alpha_get_live_markets, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alpha_get_market or other market-related tools, missing explicit exclusions or named alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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