Market status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds 'snapshot', confirming it's a point-in-time read. No contradictions, but no further behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short (6 words), concise, and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning the output format.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details like invalid market handling or output format, but the annotations partially compensate.

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%, with the parameter 'market' described with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 returns an open/closed snapshot for one market, using a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('market'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like markets_status_all by specifying 'one market'.

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 tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for a quick status check, but does not compare with siblings like markets_hours or markets_calendar, so usage context is only implied.

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