search_markets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable constraint that search matches against 'market title' specifically (not descriptions or tags), but omits other behavioral traits like result ordering, case sensitivity, rate limits, or read-only safety.

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?

Description is efficiently structured with a single purpose sentence followed by a clear Args section. No redundant or wasted text; every sentence 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (covering return values) and the Args section documenting parameters, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: lacks explicit read-only indication (since no annotations present) or mention of default limit=20 behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by clearly defining both parameters: query as the 'Search query string to match against market titles' and limit as 'Maximum number of results to return', including implied default behavior.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Search'), resource ('prediction markets'), and scope ('by keyword in market title'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_markets (browse all) and get_market (specific ID lookup).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_markets or screen_markets. While 'by keyword' implies filtering intent, the description does not state prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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