market_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: singular vs. array returns, empty-array behavior, exactly-one-selector constraint, single logical GET, no auto-pagination, row/byte limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a data-read tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and most sentences add value, but the description is padded with vague boilerplate such as 'Required inputs reflect tool policy...' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied...' which do not clearly apply to this two-parameter schema. There is also a run-on sentence and a grammar slip, making it less crisp than it could be.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers invocation, return container shape, empty results, truncation, and oversized-record handling. It is not fully complete because it does not describe the actual market-status fields or explicitly differentiate itself from market_status-like siblings, but an agent has enough to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters on its own. It does: 'id' maps to singular lookup, 'ids' to comma-separated plural lookup, and it explicitly requires exactly one selector. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('market status'), and the key input type ('one listing sell transaction id or comma-separated ids'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like market_active_status or market_completed_status.

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 operational guidance — supply exactly one selector, use singular id for one record, plural ids for an array — so usage is implied and mostly explicit. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions relative to the many market siblings.

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