DCPI Market Rank

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by listing the output structure and the notable attribution requirement for quotation under CC-BY-4.0. It doesn't disclose potential failure modes or limits, but that's a minor gap given the annotations.

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 result, then adds the citation-relevant narrative detail, then the usage and exclusion guidance. Every sentence carries useful information without padding.

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?

The tool is simple enough: one fully documented parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description completes the picture with scope, use cases, exclusions, and attribution instructions, leaving no important gap for an agent deciding to call it.

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%: the single market_slug parameter is fully documented with examples and a note that valid slugs come from other tools. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond emphasizing 'single market,' so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: getting a single market's DCPI rank with a defined verdict and numeric scores. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is ONE market in depth, not rank_markets or compare_isos.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('should I build here?' with structured reasoning and citable prose) and what not to use it for, naming the alternatives rank_markets and compare_isos. This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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