list_race_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says it lists all race markets on Solana mainnet, without mentioning whether it is read-only, how results are sorted, pagination, or whether the optional status filter defaults to all statuses. This is minimal disclosure.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the action. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the core function adequately. However, it does not describe the return format or default filter behavior, which would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (status) with an enum and description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that 'all' markets are listed unless filtered. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, 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 uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'race markets', with a parenthetical explaining they are multi-outcome prediction markets. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_markets' tool, even though the alternative isn't named explicitly.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_markets or other market-listing tools. The distinction is implied by the name and the qualifier, but there is no direct statement about alternatives or when this tool is preferred.

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