stacks_market_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mainnet-only constraint and clarifies that search covers titles and descriptions, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is generally efficient. The final tip about earning_opportunities is somewhat tangential and not directly about this tool's operation, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 simple search tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and mainnet constraint. It could mention basic return characteristics or pagination, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or result ordering.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (prediction markets) with scope (across market titles and descriptions). It does not explicitly name the sibling tool stacks_market_list as an alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: one uses this to search by keyword, and the note about mainnet availability provides context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus listing all markets (stacks_market_list) or other market tools, nor any exclusions.

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