validate_market_params

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without describing side effects, return values, failure modes, or whether it is read-only. It does not clarify what happens on validation failure or what the output looks like, leaving significant ambiguity for a validation tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word is relevant and no space is wasted.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It does not explain how validation works for different market types (event vs measurement), what constitutes valid timing, or what the return format is. For a validation tool of this complexity, the description is underspecified.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying they are validated against timing rules, which is minimal added value.

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 a specific verb ('validate') and a resource ('market parameters') plus a specific scope ('v7.2 timing rules'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_market_question, which focuses on the question text, and validate_bet, which focuses on bets.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when market parameters need validation against timing rules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, though its specificity to timing rules provides clear context that other validation tools (e.g., validate_market_question) are for different aspects.

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