Analyze Transfer Market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job disclosing the analysis outputs: budget, squad valuation flags, and listings scored by points-per-million, market-value trend, expiry urgency, and opponent strength. It still does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or address permissions/freshness, but 'analysis' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned information, then the actionable use case. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to exhaustively explain return values, but it still helpfully summarizes them. The main remaining gap is parameter semantics for league_id, plus the absence of explicit read-only/safety context due to missing annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'next N matchdays' for horizon_matchdays, but it does not explain league_id at all and does not clarify the defaults or optionality of either parameter.

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 verb and resource ('Composite analysis' for 'transfer market') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling market tools by describing a composite output: budget, squad valuation flags, and every market listing scored across several dimensions. An agent can identify it as the strategy-analysis tool rather than a raw market listing tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to decide which players to sell and which market bargains to buy.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_market or get_my_squad, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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