get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It notes the call uses 'algod simulate', suggesting a read-only simulation, but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, potential failure modes, or expected latency. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes technical implementation details (call via algod simulate) that add context but could be considered slightly verbose for an agent that mainly needs to know what it does.

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, the description's 'full on-chain data' is vague and does not enumerate what fields or structure to expect. It also omits error conditions and network specifics. For a simple two-parameter getter, this is minimally sufficient but leaves 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with both 'chain' and 'symbol' having descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 gets a single DorkFi lending market's full on-chain data via a specific ABI method. It explicitly uses 'single', distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_markets' tool, and specifies the resource (DorkFi lending market) and action (get).

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 for a single market, contrasting with get_markets for plural. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit 'single' vs 'plural' distinction.

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