list_markets

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

No annotations provided, but the description accurately reflects a read-only list operation with no side effects. It does not disclose potential rate limits or data staleness, but for a simple discovery tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states functionality, second adds immediate usage guidance. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and the nature of its output (market types with counts). It is complete for a simple discovery tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds full value by explaining the tool's output purpose (learning valid market filter values). The schema provides no parameter info, and the description compensates excellently.

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 states the tool lists market types with live counts and serves as a discovery reference. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_events or get_odds, but could be slightly more specific about what constitutes a 'market type'.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a reference/discovery tool for learning valid `market` filter values, giving clear context for when to use it. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but it's implicitly understood.

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