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 discloses the type of data returned and the geographic scope, but does not mention data freshness, error cases, or read-only semantics. It adds useful context but lacks full behavioral 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, information-dense phrase that front-loads the tool's purpose and key data points. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing the data content and the benchmarking context. It does not include return format or error handling, but for a straightforward market-facts tool, this is adequately 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 100% coverage of the single parameter 'scope', including an example. The description adds the 'macro' context but does not provide additional parameter-level syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 specifies the tool's function: providing macro market facts for a city or national scope. It lists concrete data points (median price, supply, momentum, catalysts) and mentions the GIN Deal pillar, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_listings or get_gin_score.

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 when macro market data is needed and mentions benchmarking for the GIN Deal pillar, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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