pmus_get_market

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It mentions the bundled contents but does not explain side effects, rate limits, or truncation behavior around description_chars; this is an adequate supplement, not a rich one.

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?

A single succinct sentence with a colon-delimited list. The main action is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes content about scope or returned fields; no filler or redundancy.

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 low parameter count, full schema coverage, safe annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. It could be slightly more complete by noting that description_chars controls truncation of the rules text, but this is already in the parameter schema.

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. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'one market' reinforces slug_or_id scope and the output list hints at description_chars effect, but no extra format or behavioral parameter details are supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one market') and enumerates its returned contents (rules/settlement text, tick size, fee coefficient, sides, quotes). The singular 'one market' distinguishes it from list/search siblings, and the content list differentiates it from focused siblings like get_settlement or get_bbo.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only implies use for fetching a single market's detailed static data; it does not name exclusions or direct the agent to a sibling such as pmus_get_settlement or pmus_list_markets.

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