market_active_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one-logical-GET behavior, no auto-pagination, array response limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read tool, though it does not mention authentication or error semantics beyond oversized records.

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?

Information-dense but somewhat verbose and includes vague boilerplate like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema.' There is also a grammatical run-on: 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.' Front-loading is good, but some sentences add limited actionable value.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call contract: selector semantics, active-vs-completed routing, response shape variation, pagination, local limits, truncation, and refusal behavior. It lacks a dedicated mention of the completed-status sibling nameicky and detailed error behavior, but is otherwise sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It does: 'id' is a single listing sell transaction id, 'ids' is comma-separated ids, and exactly one selector should be supplied. It also notes the singular/plural response-shape difference. This compensates well for the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about accepted formats or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('active market status'), and the key selector ('one listing sell transaction id or comma-separated ids'). It also distinguishes itself from the completed-status route and explains that singular and plural selectors return different response shapes. This clearly separates it from siblings like market_completed_status and other market tools.

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?

Gives explicit usage constraints: 'Supply exactly one selector', 'this route is separate from completed status', and it warns about pagination behavior ('Does not auto-fetch continuation pages'). It does not name the exact sibling alternative to use for completed status, but the separation is stated clearly enough for an agent to route correctly.

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