get_disputed_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and clearly states the resource, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or output structure. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys its purpose with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description sufficiently conveys that it lists disputed markets, but it leaves some ambiguity about what counts as 'under dispute' versus related statuses like 'awaiting resolution', and it does not clarify any relationship to sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline for zero params is 4.

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's function: 'List all markets currently under dispute.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_markets and get_markets_awaiting_resolution.

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 that the tool is used for retrieving disputed markets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_markets_awaiting_resolution. There is no mention of exclusions or comparative context, so guidance is merely implied.

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