get_all_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool is a read operation returning many market types, but it does not disclose behavior like rate limits, auth requirements, or handling of missing data. The output schema helps, but more context would be beneficial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous information. Every word serves a clear function.

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 output schema defines return values, and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides complete context for using the tool. It explains the scope (all market types) and gives examples.

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 all parameters effectively. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 tool gets all available market types for an event in one call, listing examples like moneylines, matchups, totals. This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual market types.

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 this tool is used when you want all market types at once, contrasting with siblings that get specific types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as when you need only a subset.

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