create_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Create a new market' only restates the operation and gives no information about side effects, duplicate handle handling, required permissions, or return values. This is essentially missing transparency.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only two parameters, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description omits return values, potential errors, usage patterns, and any relationship to other market tools, making it less than minimally viable for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters: 'name' as 'Market name' and 'handle' as 'Unique handle for the market', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'market', clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like get_market, update_market, and delete_market. However, it lacks any detail about what a market is or prerequisites, so it stops 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_markets or update_market. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the verb 'Create'.

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