get_markets_by_category

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 indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose how the filtering works (e.g., match all vs any tags), return format, pagination, or sorting behavior. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a filtered-list 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with full schema coverage for both parameters, so the core functionality is described. However, the lack of behavioral details (like tag matching semantics, return shape, or pagination) and the absence of annotations keep it from being fully complete.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond example tags. The description's examples of categories (Politics, Sports, Crypto) give a flavor of valid values but do not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('markets'), and a specific filter dimension ('category/tags'). Examples of categories (Politics, Sports, Crypto) distinguish this tool from siblings like search_markets or get_trending_markets.

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 filtering markets by category/tags, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the usage context only implied.

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