get_market_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says 'detailed information' without specifying what fields are returned, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens for invalid IDs. The safety profile of a get operation is somewhat implied, but the burden is not fully met.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description's mention of 'detailed information' is vague. The agent is left without knowledge of the return structure or edge-case behavior, which matters for a tool that is meant to provide details.

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 100% with 'Unique market ID' documenting the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond echoing 'by ID', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameter's format or constraints.

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 action (get), the resource (detailed information about a market), and the specific scope (by ID). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_trending_markets or search_markets by emphasizing the ID-based lookup.

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 a specific market ID is known and detailed information is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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