ig_search_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and search criterion, with no mention of the return format, whether results are partial or exact matches, pagination, or that this is a read-only operation. This is minimal for a search tool.

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 with no redundancy or filler. It conveys the core function efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 details are not required. However, the description could add context like 'Use this to find the market ID for subsequent calls' or clarify that it returns a list of matching instruments. As written, it is adequate for a straightforward search but lacks enriching detail.

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 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that search_term can be a market name or symbol, giving it semantic meaning. However, it does not explain format, case sensitivity, or wildcard behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('IG instruments'), and the search criterion ('by a market name or symbol'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ig_get_market (which retrieves a specific market) and ig_list_category_instruments (which lists by category).

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 the tool should be used when needing to find instruments by name or symbol, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer would be beneficial.

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