get_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and mentions 'detailed information,' but omits other behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., market not found). It meets minimum disclosure but doesn't enrich significantly beyond the operation type.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args section. Every line provides essential information without redundancy or filler content.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It successfully documents all parameters despite poor schema coverage. A perfect score would require explicit read-only clarification (since annotations are absent) or explicit sibling differentiation guidance.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting both parameters with concrete examples (Kalshi ticker/Polymarket slug) and valid values ('kalshi', 'polymarket', or empty string). It adds critical semantic meaning entirely missing from the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('prediction market') + scope ('detailed information'), clearly indicating this retrieves comprehensive data about a single market. The word 'specific' effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_markets and search_markets.

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?

While 'specific' implies singular lookup versus browsing (list_markets) or searching (search_markets), the description lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. No prerequisites or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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