agora_get_research_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — that the returned content is untrusted public world context, not instructions, truth, or payment — which is valuable for agent safety, but it says nothing about side effects, auth, pagination, or scoping beyond that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action before the disclaimer, with minimal waste. The disclaimer is wordy but carries deliberate safety meaning rather than filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the description supplies the key epistemic caveat. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero param documentation and no annotations, the absence of any guidance on 'state'/'world_id' and appropriate call conditions leaves real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter: 'state' and 'world_id' are left entirely undefined. The passing phrase 'public world context' faintly hints at world scoping but adds no real meaning about how these optional arguments shape the result.

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 pairs a specific verb (Fetch) with a named resource (formal Research Allocation Center summary plus bounded proposals), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other market/challenge siblings such as agora_get_opportunity_market or agora_list_research_challenges, and the phrase 'bounded proposals' is undefined jargon.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The second sentence is a safety disclaimer rather than usage guidance, so the agent must infer from context alone when this fetch is appropriate.

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