get_top_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions ranking options but does not disclose limit behavior, ordering direction (descending), or return format. The tool is a read-only list operation, so deeper disclosure is less critical, but omissions are notable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding. Perfectly concise.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema). The description covers the ranking dimension but omits output details (e.g., list of market objects with fields). Given no output schema, more context about what is returned would be helpful. Still adequate for a basic list tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, except implying that 'rank_by' options correspond to the listed metrics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains the parameters.

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 retrieves 'top prediction markets' ranked by specific metrics (volume, open interest, trade count). The verb 'Get' and resource 'top markets' are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_market_details (single market) and get_platform_stats (overall stats).

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 obtaining a ranked list of top markets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific filters or searches). No when-not or alternative tool names are provided, but the purpose is clear enough.

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