ig_get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (dealing rules, snapshot, details) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The word 'get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 sentence that concisely states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-suited for quick scanning and contains 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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 required parameters, output schema present), and the description adequately covers what data is returned. However, it misses key contextual details such as when to use this tool versus siblings, what the timezone parameter expects, and any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics leaves noticeable gaps.

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 schema has two parameters (epic and timezone) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'instrument epic,' which provides a minimal hint that the epic parameter refers to the market identifier, but it does not explain the timezone parameter or its intended format. With no descriptions in the schema, the description fails to compensate adequately for either parameter.

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's function: to retrieve dealing rules, snapshot, and details for a specific instrument epic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ig_search_markets (which searches for epics) and ig_get_historical_prices (which retrieves price history). The verb 'get' and the specific resource (market details for an epic) make the purpose explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a full market snapshot after you already know the epic, nor does it contrast with ig_get_current_candle or other market-related tools. There is no implied context beyond the tool name and basic action.

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