horizon_torn_getMarketTimestamp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states a read operation ('Get') but offers no details on caching, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The minimal text fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which may seem concise, but it omits critical context that would help an agent use the tool correctly. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the timestamp, how parameters affect the response, or what the return value represents. Agents cannot infer usage patterns.

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 is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, but it does not detract either.

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 states 'Get current server time', which is a clear verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about the market context, making it hard to distinguish from many sibling timestamp tools (e.g., getFactionTimestamp, getTornTimestamp). The tool name includes 'Market', but the description does not reference it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. Given the large number of timestamp siblings, this omission is critical.

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