Prediction market briefing

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the output shape (markdown with three named sections), which is real value given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting latency, cost, or freshness of the cross-venue check.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the deliverable ("A short markdown briefing") and then the contents via a colon list. Every clause maps to either the output or the input mode, so 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?

The output side is well covered (no output schema exists, and the description names the sections). The input side is incomplete: limit is never explained, and the no-topic default is only implied. For a low-complexity tool with two optional params this is adequate but leaves a gap an agent would need to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It addresses topic only indirectly via "for a topic," and says nothing at all about limit (range 1-20), which controls how many markets are surfaced. With two undocumented parameters, half the semantics are missing.

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 names a concrete deliverable (a short markdown briefing) and enumerates its contents: headline odds, biggest 24h moves, and a cross-venue check. That distinguishes it from the raw-data siblings (get_market_odds, compare_markets, trending_markets) as a synthesized digest, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"for a topic or for the most active markets overall" implicitly signals that topic is optional and that calling with no arguments yields the default active-markets view, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this briefing over get_market_odds, compare_markets, or trending_markets when a user asks a narrow odds question.

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