get_market

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 operation ('Get detailed info') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., market not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and the identifying information needed, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 the existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description is minimal and lacks usage context, such as when to prefer this tool over list_markets or search_markets, and does not mention potential error conditions. For a simple single-parameter get tool, it is adequate but leaves room for better guidance.

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 schema provides only a parameter name and type ('slug_or_id' as string) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical semantic meaning by clarifying that the parameter can be either a slug or a condition ID, which directly compensates for the schema gap. However, it does not provide format examples or constraints, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed info for a specific market', and specifies the identification method (by slug or condition ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_markets (which lists all) and search_markets (which searches) by targeting a single, known market.

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 usage when a specific slug or condition ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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