market_active_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It reveals distinct response shapes for singular vs plural selectors, that it makes exactly one logical GET request without auto-fetching continuation pages, local limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is a thorough, honest account of the tool's behavior.

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 information-dense yet efficiently structured. It front-loads the purpose, then elaborates on response shapes, selector constraints, request behavior, and output limits. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler or repetition—and the details are ordered logically from core function to caveats.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it reads, how to select, response shape variation, pagination behavior, limits, truncation indicators, and refusal policy. It also distinguishes this route from completed status, which is essential for routing. An agent would not be missing any key information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema only provides 'id' and 'ids' as strings with minLength 1, but the description adds meaning: it distinguishes singular vs plural selector effects on response shape, mandates exactly one selector, and hints at policy-driven requiredness. It could be more explicit that 'id' expects a single ID and 'ids' expects comma-separated IDs, but it implies this distinction clearly enough.

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 and resource: 'Read active market status by one listing sell transaction id or comma-separated ids.' It unambiguously states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings by noting 'this route is separate from completed status,' making it distinct from '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?

The description gives clear context on when to use this tool versus the completed status route, and it instructs 'Supply exactly one selector,' clarifying usage constraints. It also warns about forwarded filters. However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or state conditions for when to prefer this over 'market_status' or 'market_completed_status,' only implying a partition by active vs completed.

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