get_market_dcpi_rank

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: includes a narrative block with attribution requirement, and covers 100+ markets in 10 ISOs. No contradictions.

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 somewhat verbose (around 80 words) but contains useful details. Could be more concise, but the structure is logical.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return values (verdict, scores, narrative) and usage context. It mentions attribution and licensing, which is helpful.

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?

Only one parameter 'market_slug' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what a market slug is or provide format/examples. The agent may not know how to provide this input.

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?

Clearly states it provides DCPI rank for a single market, listing specific outputs (verdict, scores, narrative). The description distinguishes it from sibling 'rank_markets' by focusing on a single 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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'answer should I build here?'. Provides context on the output including narrative and attribution. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear.

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