market_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the /markets data is cached, the operation costs 1–2 calls, and the optional /me call is explicit. It does not state how invalid codes are reported or confirm the operation is read-only (the GET references imply it, but the validation result behavior is unstated).

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 with zero filler: the first front-loads the core validation action and the optional behavior, the second delivers a useful quota signal. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, quota, caching, and the schema documents all parameters. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what validation results contain (what concise vs detailed vs json responses look like, or error behavior for invalid codes), so an agent must discover output shape by trial.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline 3 applies. The description only adds marginal value by linking include_account_market to the /me endpoint; the rest of the parameter meaning lives in the schema where it already exists.

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 names a specific verb (validate), a resource (ISO 3166-1 market codes), and the backing endpoint (GET /markets, cached), plus the optional /me behavior. It stands apart from siblings like get_available_markets or market_availability by its validation focus, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use when you need to check whether market codes are valid,' and the quota note (🟢 1–2 calls) signals cost. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against siblings like get_available_markets and market_availability, leaving the decision boundary to inference.

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