get_market_dcpi_rank

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail: returns scores and a narrative block, covers 100+ markets in 10 ISOs, and specifies licensing (CC-BY-4.0). 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?

Description is slightly long but well-structured: first sentence gives core purpose, then details outputs and usage guidelines. No wasted words, but could be slightly shorter.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the rich return values (verdict, scores, narrative) and context (100+ markets, 10 ISOs, licensing). Complete for agent decision-making.

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, which is self-explanatory but not described in detail. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should clarify the format or valid values. It partially compensates by stating 'for a single market', but could be more explicit.

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 provides a DCPI rank for a single market with specific outputs (verdict, scores, narrative). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly telling not to use for ranking many markets or comparing 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?

Explicitly states when to use (answer 'should I build here?') and when not to use (ranking many markets, comparing ISOs). Provides attribution instructions for the narrative block.

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