market_completed_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, and it delivers extensively. It discloses response shape differences, that payment quantities remain strings, that it makes one logical GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, array limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. It also notes that declared filters are forwarded as supplied. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but each sentence contributes useful information. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers response shapes, selection rules, request behavior, and limits. There is minor redundancy (e.g., repeated mention of selector shapes) but overall efficiently structured for an agent to parse key constraints quickly.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers many operational details: selection, pagination, limits, and error behavior. However, it omits any description of the actual response fields (what 'completed market status' contains), and the sentence 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' is confusing since the schema allows no additional properties. This leaves the agent without a clear picture of the return structure, making it less complete than it could be.

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 provides only type and minLength for id and ids, with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that id is singular and ids is a comma-separated list, that exactly one must be used, and that the response shape differs between singular and plural. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not provide format examples or detail how the comma separation works beyond that.

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 completed market status' by transaction ID(s). It explicitly distinguishes singular and plural selectors and their response shapes, making it clear how this differs from siblings like market_status or market_active_status. The phrase 'completed' and 'by one listing sell transaction id' precisely scopes the tool.

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 clearly states the context of use: it is for reading completed market status by transaction ID(s), and it tells the agent to supply exactly one selector (id or ids). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it over siblings. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendation.

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