get_markets_awaiting_resolution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are suggested. Still, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only action or disclose any other behaviors like pagination or ordering, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides complete context for understanding its core function. It communicates the exact subset of markets returned, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the returned data, which might be useful but is not critical.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description effectively communicates that no input is required. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools, and no further parameter details are necessary.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('all closed markets awaiting resolution'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_market or list_markets which serve different purposes.

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 usage is implied by the description: use it when you need the list of closed markets awaiting resolution. However, it does not explicitly note when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_markets or get_disputed_markets, so there is room for more direct guidance.

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