Compare prices across marketplaces

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the non-obvious cost model: each marketplace captured is a separate billed capture, bounded by max_marketplaces. It still doesn't say what happens when an event isn't found on a marketplace or whether partial results are returned, so it's strong but not complete.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then the cap. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's max_marketplaces default, which costs it a point.

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, the description does the necessary work of explaining the return shape (cheapest tickets ranked by all-in price for a quantity). Only failure modes and the exact cost per capture remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so event/quantity/top/max_marketplaces are already documented. The description repeats the max_marketplaces default (already in schema) and adds no format guidance for the event parameter, so it earns baseline only.

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?

States a specific multi-step action: resolve one event, capture it on every marketplace, rank results by all-in price for a given quantity. It names the ranking criterion (fees included), which is the distinguishing value versus single-marketplace siblings like get_listings or get_seat_map.

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 implies its niche (cross-marketplace price comparison for a ticket quantity) but never explicitly says when to prefer it over get_listings or find_events, nor when not to use it. An agent must infer the routing from context rather than being told.

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