market_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. It also explains that unmatched ids return an empty array and that absence does not imply reason. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any schema could 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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers edge cases and limits. Slightly long, but each clause adds necessary behavioral information that annotations would normally carry. The structure is logical: purpose, response shape, selector rule, request behavior, limits.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers response shape (single record vs array), empty behavior, selector constraints, request behavior, pagination, size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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 compensate. It explains the two parameters (id vs ids) and their singular/plural semantics, and clarifies that exactly one selector must be supplied. It doesn't give format examples (e.g., comma-separated syntax) but the semantics are clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('market status by one listing sell transaction id or comma-separated ids'), and clearly distinguishes singular vs plural behavior. It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on status lookup by transaction id, which is distinct from market_query_by_card, market_active_status, and 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 explicitly says 'Supply exactly one selector' and explains the singular/plural id behavior, which tells the agent when to use id vs ids. It also warns that 'no record does not establish why it is absent' and that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied but effectiveness is not implied, giving clear guidance on what to expect and how to interpret results.

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