stacks_market_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the mainnet-only limitation, but says nothing about what 'full details' contains, what happens with an unknown or malformed market_id, or whether the call is read-only — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core purpose and ID-format note are front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the input side adequately but leaves the return shape ('full details') and error behavior undefined. An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents itself as an epoch-ms timestamp with an example. The description mostly restates that format, though 'visible in market URLs' adds a useful hint on where to source the value, nudging it slightly above baseline.

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 and resource ('Get full details for a specific prediction market') and the singular framing implicitly distinguishes it from stacks_market_list and stacks_market_search. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the split between list/search/get.

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 tells you where the required ID comes from (market URLs) and adds a mainnet-only constraint, which is genuine usage context. It gives no explicit routing versus stacks_market_search or stacks_market_list, and the closing tip about earning_opportunities is cross-promotion rather than guidance for this tool.

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