list_markets

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: market definitions are not price quotes, live and date-based discovery are incompatible, and sport/live filters rely on catalog metadata. These are valuable operational warnings an agent would not otherwise know.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first two sentences are efficient and informative, but the third sentence, 'Catalog sport/live filters use catalog metadata,' is vague and likely to confuse an agent without adding clear 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?

With no output schema and six optional parameters, the description gives useful warnings but does not explain what result shape to expect, how to select between 'market definitions' and 'available markets,' or pagination behavior. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves notable gaps for fully 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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate for six parameters. It explains the relevance of sport, date, and live, and touches on date-based offset behavior, but it does not describe page/limit pagination or clarify how the two discovery modes map to specific parameter combinations. Partial compensation, not full.

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 clearly identifies the tool as discovering market definitions or available markets for a sport/date, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the two discovery modes but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as list_events or get_main_lines, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-not guidance: do not treat definitions as price quotes, do not combine live with date-based discovery, and use catalog metadata for catalog filters. It provides useful usage context but never names a specific alternative tool, such as get_main_lines for prices, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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