get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation but does not mention what details are returned, whether markets are nested, whether a valid slug is required, or any other observable behavior beyond the name.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the key idea 'get event details' is front-loaded. The clarifying phrase 'a group of related markets' earns its place by disambiguating the resource.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is close to minimally viable. However, the lack of any explanation of 'slug' and the absence of comparison to similar tools make it incomplete for an agent that needs to know how to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'slug' parameter at all. The agent only knows that a slug is required, not what slug refers to, its format, or how to find one. This is a significant gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get event details' and defines an event as 'a group of related markets.' This meaningfully distinguishes it from get_market, which presumably returns individual market details. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market, list_markets, or search_markets. The definition of an event as a group of related markets implies some context, but the description never states conditions or trade-offs for choosing this tool.

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