get_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the key namespace spans two venues (Kalshi ticker or Polymarket token id) and that the response reports how much of the market's life was recorded, a non-obvious behavioral detail. It doesn't cover not-found behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action and key identifier caveat front-loaded; every clause adds information and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still hints at it. Combined with the identifier dual-namespace note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only error/empty-result handling is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the lone parameter — and it does, naming accepted identifier formats (Kalshi ticker or Polymarket token id). That is meaningful disambiguation for an otherwise bare string field. It omits format examples or validation notes, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific resource (one market), the lookup key (ticker), and enumerates what comes back: terms, status, result, recording coverage. This clearly separates it from list_markets and market_price_history by singling out a single market's record. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route away from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the detail-lookup call for a single known market versus the listing tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use list_markets to find a ticker first').

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