list_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns ('questions, odds, pools, status') and that it lists all markets, but it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or other traits. The description is minimal and does not go beyond the obvious read-only nature of a 'list' 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes return fields without any filler. Every sentence earns its place. It is concise and well structured.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the key aspects: what it lists, network, type, and the fields it returns. It does not mention pagination or result structure, but for a basic list endpoint, the description is adequate. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that filters narrow the 'all' set, but the schema clarifies the default.

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%: both parameters ('layer' and 'status') have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning to the parameters; it simply says 'List all' without explaining how filters affect behavior. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all Baozi prediction markets (boolean YES/NO) on Solana mainnet.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Baozi prediction markets'), and includes scope ('all') and network ('Solana mainnet'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'list_race_markets' by explicitly mentioning 'Baozi' rather than 'race' markets.

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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly provide when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives like 'list_race_markets'. While the mention of 'Baozi' implicitly differentiates from race markets, there is no clear 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance. The defaults for filters are only in the schema, not the description.

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