Get market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'reads live data and changes nothing' largely restates structured data. The one added value is the freshness cue ('live data') and the sibling routing, but no error handling or data-staleness caveats beyond that.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the accepted input forms and the alternative tool. No filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers input formats and the main alternative. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on an unknown slug, whether stale/closed markets still resolve), so it is close to complete.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema already documents the slug/condition-ID/Kalshi-prefix formats with an example. The description repeats this rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one market) and enumerates the returned fields (question, outcome prices, volume, liquidity, status), which makes it clearly distinct from list_markets/search_markets and from sibling get_event.

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 routes depth/orderbook queries to get_order_book and gives the exact input formats accepted (Polymarket slug, condition ID, 'kalshi:<TICKER>'). No explicit when-not guidance versus list_markets or kalshi_market, but the context is clear.

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